Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKERin the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Unemployed Young Persons

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young persons under 21 years in Northern Ireland are unemployed; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): Separate statistics of the numbers of registered unemployed young persons aged under 21 are not collected. However, for the under-20 age group the most recent figures as at 12 November 1981 was 23,991. The corresponding November 1979 figure was 12,956.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that young unemployed people anywhere are more than likely to get into trouble with the law simply because they are wandering around with nothing to do, and that the circumstances in Northern Ireland make them more vulnerable to the blandishments of paramilitary organisations? Therefore, tackling the problem of the large number of unemployed young people must be an urgent priority for the Government. What proposals does the hon. Gentleman have to bring before the House?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman's analysis is correct. Unemployed youngsters are likely to get into trouble. It is precisely because of that, and because of the very high number of young people out of work, that we are taking positive steps. I mention only one. The increase in the number of places under the youth opportunities programme from 7,000 in March this year to an estimated 12,000 by March 1982—an increase of 70 per cent.—is evidence of what we are doing.

Mr. Molyneaux: In view of yesterday's announcement by Gallaher of the loss of 500 jobs in Northern Ireland, will the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State warn their Treasury colleagues that any further increase in cigarette taxation could be disastrous for both Carreras and Gallaher in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Butler: I think that it is recognised that the increase in the tax has had its impact on cigarette smoking. Equally, it has been a major contributor towards the Chancellor's strategy, and therefore it is to be welcomed in that respect.

Sir Nigel Fisher: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in some of the most difficult areas of Belfast the

percentage of unemployed, especially Catholic unemployed, is far higher than in the Province as a whole, and that this constitutes an added problem?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend will know that there is no discrimination between Protestant and Roman Catholic in employment matters. In areas of high levels of unemployment—my right hon. Friend is correct about certain parts of Belfast, but this applies also to other areas of the Province—we offer higher discretionary grants for industrial development to try to improve the employment situation.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that his statement today and Government policies do not match the fact that almost an entire generation of young people in Northern Ireland have no industrial or other work experience, that their idealism has been soured and that their hopes have been dashed? Will the Government recognise that situation and take positive steps, including, perhaps, giving financial help to employers to take on more young people under the age of 21 for at least two years?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate the position. The vast majority of young people are at work. However, he is right to point to the seriousness of the matter. It is because of this that the Government are offering incentives to employers to employ young people under the young workers scheme, which will come into effect in the Province at the beginning of January. It is conceivable that it is already having an impact.

Mr. Soley: Will the Minister take a long hard look at the recent report of the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, which demonstrates clearly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) about the link between unemployment and crime? When he looks at that report, I hope that he will conclude that there is a strong case for the expansion of the economy, particularly to soak up unskilled youth unemployment.

Mr. Butler: I recognise that the connection exists. That is why we attach special importance to that group of unemployed people in our society. At the same time, we shall not ignore the needs of unemployed adults.

Mr. Speaker: I shall not be able to call the complete round of hon. Members on other questions.

Housing Executive

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what number of houses he expects to be sold by the Housing Executive in the current financial year; and, in this connection, what sums will become available from building societies for spending by the Housing Executive in the current financial year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I understand from the chairman that over 7,000 sales are likely to be completed during this financial year. I regret that without information from individual building societies the Housing Executive cannot assess the extent to which sums will become available to it from this particular source.

Mr. Powell: With regard to the latter part of the Minister's reply., while I in no way challenge the necessity


for the annual accounting of public money, are not capital sums received in that way by the Housing Executive from building societies intended to form a net addition to resources? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that there are no pedantic and absurd results from the way in which such payments fall on one side or the other at the end of the financial year?

Mr. Mitchell: I expect that the Housing Executive will spend about £19 million this year on housing from its receipts. As to the financing of next year's programme, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in not wanting marked pound notes in relation to particular sources, so long as we can ensure that sufficient resources finance an adequate programme. I am discussing that matter with the chairman of the Housing Executive.

Mr. Soley: Is not the Housing Executive's real problem that the Minister's policies do not allow it to plan in advance? May we have an undertaking that in the next Appropriation Order money will be made available to the Housing Executive to enable it to plan at least five years in advance?

Mr. Mitchell: Apart from the question of the resources available, I am discussing with the Housing Executive a planned programme—which is exactly what the hon. Gentleman asks for—to enable it to look further than 12 months ahead. We shall then seek to make the resources available.

United States of America

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make arrangements for a ministerial visit to the United States of America to counter the misrepresentation there by sympathisers of the Irish Republican Army of the situation in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The countering of such mispresentation has been part of the purpose of recent ministerial visits; and we intend that there should be more.

Mr. Adley: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. Does he agree that it would be helpful if we could get across the basic realities to the people of the United States; for example, that the people of Northern Ireland in their relationship with Eire are just as entitled to choose their constitutional arrangements as are the people of Canada in relation to the United States?
Will my hon. Friend's colleagues explain to the American public that the IRA is seeking to create a base for subversion in Europe which is not dissimilar to what the Cubans are doing in relation to the United States? Will he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plan an early visit to the United States?

Mr. Scott: We need to use every valid argument to persuade the Americans against supporting any organisation that might help terrorism in any way. We are still planning ministerial visits for next year.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will my hon. Friend ensure that arrangements for his colleagues' trip are adequate? Unless the consulates—I have in mind Chicago in particular—make better arrangements than they have made for visits by hon. Members on similar trips, the visit will be wasted.

Mr. Scott: I hope that my hon. Friend will let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State know if there are any shortcomings in the arrangements for overseas visits.

Unemployment

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any further plans for reducing unemployment in the Province.

Mr. Adam Butler: We shall continue to pursue our regional industrial development policies, which are set out in the document "Framework for Action". Essentially these involve support for established industries, the development of small businesses and the promotion of inward investment. Success in reducing unemployment can come about only by creating real and lasting jobs, and our national and regional policies are aimed at achieving that goal.

Mr. Ross: I do not wish to belittle the efforts of the Northern Ireland Development Corporation or any other bodies that are doing their best to attract new industries to Northern Ireland, but will the Minister direct his attention to the Mondragon experiment, in Northern Spain's Basque province, which contains answers for small businesses in Northern Ireland? Will he encourage the establishment of co-operatives, particularly in places such as Londonderry?

Mr. Butler: I have answered that question before in the House. The Government are not averse to the establishment of co-operatives in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, provided that they have a chance of viability. We can learn from the experiment to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Religious Discrimination

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the provisions enacted by the Parliament of Northern Ireland which discriminated between persons or classes of persons on the gound of religious belief.

The Under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I am not aware of any such provisions.

Mr. McCusker: Does the Minister accept that the reference in section 17 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 cannot be taken to reflect unfairly on the integrity of those who promoted the legislation under the Government of Ireland Act 1920?

Mr. Patten: I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that section 17 of that Act does not reflect on the competence and, more particularly, the integrity of the draftsmen who drew up that legislation.

Mr. Fitt: Will the Minister of State examine the legislation enacted by a succession of Northern Ireland Parliaments, with particular reference to the way in which the Civil Authority (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 was used exclusively against the Catholic population in Northern Ireland? When the House took over responsibility for Northern Ireland affairs, why was it necessary to pass the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act? The legislation might not have been seen to operate against the minority, but the attitude of Ministers and a


succession of Prime Ministers made clear what the majority population of Northern Ireland was entitled to do against the minority.

Mr. Patten: None of the provisions of any of the Acts discriminated on religious grounds. It is clear to the hon. Gentleman and everybody else that acts of discrimination occurred, and therefore some sections of the Northern Ireland community withdrew their consent to the working of Stormont. That is why Stormont was disbanded.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Discrimination on religious grounds, North or South, is to be deplored, but will the Northern Ireland Office make required reading for those who brief people about the history of Northern Ireland what the American Mr. Hewitt has written in the British Journal of Sociology, which puts the allegations of discrimination at Stormont in a different light?

Mr. Patten: I am not aware of that issue of theBritish Journal of Sociology, but I shall draw it to the attention of officials in the Northern Ireland Office.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In the light of the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), will he give an assurance that a Ten-Minute Bill to remove the parts of the 1973 Act which are inconsistent with his reply will not be opposed by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Patten: I do not think that I can give any such assurance. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would share my view that section 17, with its prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of religion or politics, is positively reassuring for the population of the Province.

Terrorists (Selective Detention)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in view of the recent spate of murders and other terrorist atrocities in Northern Ireland, he will now introduce a system of selective detention for known Irish Republican Army terrorists.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): No, Sir. I believe that the best way to deal with suspected terrorists is to bring them before the courts.

Mr. Winterton: That is perhaps not an unexpected reply, and I thank my right hon. Friend for it. Bearing in mind the representations made to him by security advisers and the security forces in Northern Ireland, will he consider introducing some form of selective internment for suspected and known IRA terrorists, in accordance with the request by the Official Unionist Party which seeks to stand for moderation and progress in the Province? Many of us wish to see the ultimate deterrent—the death penalty—reintroduced, but we appreciate the sensitivity involved. Is it not important to take positive action to prevent the murder, arson and brutality which we have experienced recently?

Mr. Prior: No one underestimates the level of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland. I am not aware that any of my security advisers have called for the reintroduction of selective detention. I am not convinced that selective detention would produce any lasting benefit. I listen carefully to what all hon. Members say, but that is the position as I see it.

Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition concur with his "No, Sir" answer to the

hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)? As a Minister, I had experience of internment and I tried, in my little way, to end it. I am glad to see present my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who was very much involved in taking over the internment problem. I can only say that the reintroduction of internment would create more problems than it would solve, if it would solve any at all. I remind the House and the hon. Member for Macclesfield, who made the proposal, that our experience showed that as soon as detention or internment was introduced, violence escalated. It de-escalated only when we ended internment and started tackling the problem through the courts.

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is worth noting that 1972—the year after detention was introduced—was the worst year for terrorist violence in the history of Northern Ireland. The period from 1976 to 1980 saw a steady improvement in the security situation, although no one underestimates how far we have to go.

Security

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about security in the Province.

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any statement to make on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Prior: Since I last answered questions on 29 October, I have to tell the House with deep regret that five members of the security forces and nine civilians, including the Rev. Robert Bradford, have died as a result of terrorist attacks. Several others have been injured, some seriously. There has been a particularly vicious series of attacks on part-time members or former members of the UDR and the RUC Reserve.
The House will be aware of additional security measures which have recently been taken. In particular, the Army's Spearhead unit has been sent to Northern Ireland, and more policemen have been deployed on operational duties. The GOC is deploying the UDR flexibly, with some units from peaceful areas supplementing those in the more difficult areas. All these extra measures have enabled the security forces to concentrate on the border areas. Everything possible is being done to protect those most at risk, but a good deal inevitably depends on the vigilance of such persons themselves.
The security forces are working extremely hard to prevent further terrorist attacks, from whatever quarter. They have had important preventive successes which, by their nature, are inevitably unseen. They continue to arrest suspects. Since 29 October, 102 people have been charged with terrorist offences, making a total of 865 charged with


such offences this year. Prevention and conviction represent the right way forward. The interests of law and order and of reconciliation between the two communities cannot be served by people trying to take the law into their own hands. I am determined that terrorism will be defeated, but it must be done through the rule of law. We are entitled to expect all people to lend their full support to the established forces of law and order and to make available any information they may have which could help prevent or detect criminal acts.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the five hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Brotherton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of hon. Members wholeheartedly support and congratulate the security forces on their recent successes? Is he further aware that there was a report on the tape today that various officials of the United States of America were coming to London to discuss the problem of Northern Ireland with his Department? Will he make it plain to the House that the problems of Ulster are the problems of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and have nothing whatever to do with any other foreign power?

Mr. Prior: I am sure that the matter to which my hon. Friend refers is a speculative piece. I am certain that the Americans, as much as the rest of the House, understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the support that he gives to the security forces.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: My right hon. Friend, despite the representations of the Police Federation of Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), has ruled out selective detention. Since we have not yet got extradition from the South or any efficacious alternative, will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Office to renew its efforts in Dublin to secure either extradition or that efficacious alternative? Is he aware that the people of this country will not be content for ever to listen to these melancholy communiqués in a 100 years war.

Mr. Prior: The Irish Government, I think, have not been left in any doubt about our views on extradition. It is true that so far extra-territorial legislation has not been very effective, but we now see encouraging signs that this is changing. I am hopeful that the talks between the two Attorneys-General will result in further action. Anything that can be done to bring pressure on the Irish Government in respect of criminals who take refuge in the South should be done.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend pass on the congratulations of the House to the security forces on their recent successes and thank them for bringing a greater measure of security to the Province? Will he confirm that the situation is such that there is no place whatever for any so-called third force? Does he realise the great concern, not only in Ulster, but on this side of the water, a the prospect of such a force being allowed a free rein?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I confirm absolutely what my hon. Friend said. I think that that would be the view of the whole House. I believe that the availability of information

is the most important method by which we can bring criminals to justice. The more that both communities get on with this, the sooner we shall solve our problems.

Mr. Winnick: All hon. Members continue to deplore the senseless and mindless terrorism of the Provisional IRA, but is the Secretary of State aware that there is no support in the House or in the country for the bullying and intimidating manner in which those associated with a third force speak? Does he agree that this sort of action should be repudiated? Will he assure the House that the negotiations with the Dublin authorities regarding the Province will continue and that he will not withdraw from those talks?

Mr. Prior: I am seeking to pursue a policy in which the majority and the minority groupings in Northern Ireland can live in peace with each other. No one should say anything that makes that task more difficult.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Secretary of State aware that we have played our part in devising mechanisms entirely within the law to provide the channel of communication for information to be fed to the security forces? Will the right hon. Gentleman refute reports to the effect that the special security measures to which he referred, which were announced on 17 November, are to be reduced by next Wednesday? Will he assure the House that this time the security forces will be encouraged to finish the job of eliminating terrorism, from whatever source? As the Royal Ulster Constabulary is now rapidly approaching its recruitment target, will the right hon. Gentleman recommend that its establishment be increased by another 1,000?

Mr. Prior: If the police authority or the Chief Constable put forward proposals for an increase in the size of the force, I shall consider them carefully.
On other matters, it is not only the open, but the covert, side of security that is important. I lay special stress on that. I have no plans at the moment to make any change in the disposition of forces in Northern Ireland, but this is still a matter of consultation between myself and the GOC and the Chief Constable.
I warmly welcome all information that is made available to us. I hope that it will be strictly within the law. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has sought to do in that respect.

Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that he will find a ready response from the Opposition to his statement on security and the way in which he is tackling the situation? We also back the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have always believed that the security forces are as good as the information they receive? The best way to get information from that great block of people in Northern Ireland between the two extremes is for them to see a ready response to their pleas for social, economic and political activity as well.

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I have always believed that there are three parts to a tripod which can lead eventually to peace and greater security in Northern Ireland. The most important part of that tripod must be security. I am grateful for the support that I have received in recent days from Churchmen of all denominations and the pressure that they are bringing to bear on the community.

Mr.Michael McNair-Wilson: My right hon. Friend has exhorted those who wish to play a part in the security of the Province to come forward and join the official security forces—the UDR and the RUC—but is he satisfied that the regulations governing the acceptance of new recruits into those forces are not unduly restrictive?

Mr. Prior: I believe that I am, but I shall reconsider the regulations. There has been a problem about those who have reached the age limit. I have had consultations with the GOC to see whether he can be more flexible about those who are nearing the age limit. If my hon. Friend has any points in mind about entry to the UDR, I shall see that they are examined.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that, while it is obviously desirable, extradition is not likely to be achieved in the foreseeable future, for many complicated reasons, and therefore further and greater co-operation between the security forces north and south of the border is of the essence? Is he aware that that has been achieved in recent months?

Mr. Prior: Co-operation is much better, but it is never perfect. The talks between the Attorneys-General could do much more to help. However, the Government of the Republic are more aware now of the strong feelings in Northern Ireland and in the House about criminals in the South.

Mr. Fitt: In the measure that the Secretary of State has undertaken to deter terrorism in Northern Ireland—that terrorism is not restricted to one section of the community—will he be ever mindful that there is now real fear in the minds of the minority in Northern Ireland about the creation of a third force? Will he give an undertaking to me, which I am sure would be accepted by the House, that anyone found in Northern Ireland in an illegal assembly and wearing a mask, whether in the IRA or the so-called third force, will be arrested immediately? Is he aware that it has been stated that members of the third force are, in another line of duty, members of the UDR and the RUC? Will he give a further undertaking to the House that if anyone waving a licence, or a so-called licence, permitting him to have arms is found to be a member of the third force, he will have those arms withdrawn?

Mr. Prior: I have made it clear that private armies have no place in our society. They will not be allowed to take over the work of the security forces. The Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding are investigating allegations that members of the RUC and UDR have taken part in so-called third force demonstrations carrying their weapons. I am certain that appropriate action will be taken if that is proved to have been the case. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, but it is far better, having laid down the general principles from the House and the Government, to leave the interpretation of the law to the Chief Constable and the GOC, in whom I have the utmost confidence.

Mr. Kilfedder: rose——

Mr. McCusker: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call both hon. Members, because five questions are being answered.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Secretary of State congratulates himself smugly on the messages of support that he has received from various bodies in Northern Ireland for his

security policy. Does he realise that he will not get any congratulations from the relatives of those who have been foully murdered or cruelly maimed by the Provisional IRA in its vicious, sectarian campaign of violence against Protestants and members of the security forces——

Sir John Biggs-Davison: And Catholics.

Mr. Kilfedder: —and will he now accept that it is time for the Government to do something, after 13 years, to protect the lives of those who live, daily and nightly, under fear of death?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear me correctly. I did not say that those messages of support had been conveyed to me. I said that the Catholic Church and the Churches in Northern Ireland generally were now playing an active part in advising people to give information in a way that perhaps they had not done previously. I do not wish in any way to minimise what Northern Ireland has suffered for 12 years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do all that he can to help me to bring about peace and reconciliation between the minority and the majority elements in that society.

Mr. McCusker: The Secretary of State talked about prevention and conviction as being a way forward, and I believe that most people would agree with that in a normal situation, but what consolation is that to people living along the border in Armagh, Tyrone and Fermanagh, who neither see prevention at work nor a conviction? When he is bearing in mind what has been said by Church leaders, does he remember the words of the Archbishop of Armagh a few weeks ago, when he said that the campaign along the border amounted to nothing more or less than a constructive attempt to drive people off land that they and their predecessors had lived on for centuries? Will he consider reopening some of the small police stations that existed along the border in the 1950s and 1960s in an attempt to instil some confidence into those communities?

Mr. Prior: As I said in my original answer, 102 people have been charged with terrorist offences since 29 October, including, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, a number for offences that may have been committed in the border area. We are making every effort to catch the criminals. The hon. Gentleman has been to see me with a number of proposals. I have taken those proposals seriously and implemented them wherever possible. He has produced another proposal this afternoon. I shall see that it is examined, but the difficulty about opening small police stations is that, quite often, they are the focus of attacks by terrorists and it is better to have people out on the ground than in police stations. However, we shall examine the matter again.

Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in view of the negotiations with the Government of the Irish Republic for increased cooperation between the United Kingdom and the Republic, he will take steps to assure the majority of the people of Northern Ireland that their desire to remain within the United Kingdom has the wholehearted endorsement of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will take steps to assure the


majority of the people in Northern Ireland that it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government that the Province should continue to remain within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Prior: I reaffirm that the Government's policy is to maintain the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in accordance with the wish of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stanbrook: Since the people of Northern Ireland have endured for over 12 years the campaign of violence and hatred directed against them because they are British, does my right hon. Friend agree that they deserve to be commended both for their patience and their courage? Will he therefore make it absolutely clear that they will be supported in their determination to remain British? Will he give that support, and will he make it clear to the Republic that the people of Northern Ireland will have that support for as long as they wish to remain British?

Mr. Prior: That support has always been made clear and remains the policy of the Government. The Republic of Ireland also recognises that any change could be made only by consent. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will come to live together in peace and will recognise the great advantages of remaining part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Flannery: ; Is it not clear to the Secretary of State that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), while constantly declaiming his adherence to the United Kingdom, acts as though the United Kingdom Government are alien to the North? Is it not clear that the actions of that hon. Member are opposed to any political steps taken by the Government to engage in conversations that they feel will bring about peace? Is it not clear that something must be done to try to prevent the position whereby the third force, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has said, can go through the streets in uniform waving armaments? If any member of the Catholic community did that, he would be arrested. Can we have evenhanded democracy in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the whole House that I intend democracy to be evenhanded throughout the Province.

Mr. Dickens: Although I recognise that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend accepts that nearly all the inhabitants of the United Kingdom are intolerant of the millions of pounds that are being poured into that part of the United Kingdom, and intolerant also of the loss of lives in the Ulster Constabulary and in the Armed Forces, as well as the loss of other innocent public lives? Will my right hon. Friend pledge to show the same tenacity towards finding a political solution to Northern Ireland as we showed when solving the problems of Rhodesia, now known as Zimbabwe?

Mr. Prior: The two problems are not in any way comparable. However, I am sure that the whole House will wish to be tenacious in seeking a peaceful solution to the problems that have faced us for so long.

Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that we wholeheartedly support the Anglo-Irish dialogue, but feel that it is probably time that the House had a chance to discuss the matter? We look forward to a debate, as

early as possible in the new year, on the joint studies and the other related issues that have been put forward by hon. Members today.

Mr. Prior: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, an opportunity must be given before long for a debate on Northern Ireland. I know that my right hon. Friend has that in mind.

Homosexual Law Reform

Mr. Soley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the reform of homosexual law in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Patten: Not yet, but my right hon. Friend hopes soon to be in a position to make a statement following the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr. Soley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we cannot allow such an anomaly to continue for much longer? Will he undertake to look at civil liberties generally in Northern Ireland to ensure that they do not fall below those existing in other West European States?

Mr. Patten: I have given an undertaking that my right hon. Friend hopes to come forward soon, after due consideration has been given to the difficult implications—in a legal and social sense—of the ruling. He hopes to make a statement to the House. I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about civil liberties.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Do the Government accept the principle that legislation that is introduced and passed for the rest of the United Kingdom, as a result of Private Member's Bills and without the authority of the Government being exerted, cannot be applied by the Government, by Order in Council or otherwise, to another part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Patten: No, Sir. I cannot accept that.

Mr. Stokes: If the permissive society has not yet reached Northern Ireland, is that not a very good thing that the North shares with the Republic?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has voiced some of the feelings that are strongly expressed in the Province and to which the Government are rightly sensitive. The judgment of the European Court drew those feelings of sensitivity to the attention of everyone.

Stranraer-Larne Route

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in view of the closure of the Liverpool to Belfast ferry route, he will seek discussions with British Rail Sealink to ensure the extension of the service on the Stranraer to Larne link.

Mr. David Mitchell: No, Sir. Both ferry operators working out of the port of Larne have assured us that there is sufficient capacity available at the present time.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that we on the Labour Benches hope that speedy action will be taken to reopen the Liverpool to Belfast ferry? What action will he take to ensure that the same fate does not befall the route


from Stranraer to Larne? In particular, will he join us in asking the Monopolies and Merger Commission and his right hon. Friend to reject the proposed takeover bid by European Ferries?

Mr. Mitchell: The reopening of the service from Belfast to Liverpool is a matter for the commercial judgment of those who are considering operating a service. We very much hope that they will come forward and make the operation successful. As regards the safety and continuance of the Larne service, 8,000 fewer passengers have travelled on the P and O Belfast-Liverpool service during the past five years, while over 422,000 more passengers have travelled between Lame and Scotland. Therefore, it is plain that the service is viable.

Mr. Concannon: Is the Minister aware that it would probably be in his interests, and in the interests of the House, if he were to be a little more forthcoming about the state of negotiations for reopening the Belfast to Liverpool ferry? I am not asking for names or for the names of firms, but merely if he will give some assurance that the matter is proceeding with all speed.

Mr. Mitchell: Negotiation is not a matter for the Government. We have played the role of the honest broker in advising those concerned of the commercial possibilities. We have every reason to believe that operators will come forward, but that is for them—not the Government.

De Lorean Cars Ltd.

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current output and product development of De Lorean Cars Ltd.

Mr. Adam Butler: I understand that the company is currently producing approximately 80 cars per day, a rate which would enable it to meet the target of 20,000 cars that it originally set itself for 1982.
The company will continue to develop and improve the DMC 12 to meet the demands of the market and I understand that it has plans to introduce, at some later stage, a new saloon car.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that it is very much to be hoped that sales will catch up with output and lead to long-term, stable jobs in the Province? As regards public accountability, given that £80 million of taxpayers' money is involved, will the Minister explain why he has failed to tell the House that three members of the audit committee have financial interests in the company according to the Minister's paper, theSunday Telegraph? In addition, will he explain why $18 million of taxpayers' money has been spirited abroad to a Panamanian company to pay Lotus Cars, which is in Norfolk? While we want permanent jobs, we also want full and proper accountability of taxpayers' money.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman's information about sales and production is erroneous, because sales are running ahead of production. The same comment might well apply to the hon. Gentleman's other allegations. I ask him and others who attempt to detract from this exercise not to do so, because they will damage employment prospects in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Brinton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the chairman of the student academic campaign for Soviet Jewry.

Mr. Brinton: Although I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply, does she agree that, in the week that the House has heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, it is somewhat ironic that it has also been lobbied by the young jobless, teachers and members of local government? Do not such diverse interests illustrate the direct conflict facing the nation? What advice will my right hon. Friend give me to place before my constituents in Gravesend if public spending continues to rise at its present rate?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has put his finger on two points. First, if those in the public sector demand more and more pay for doing the same amount of work, there will be less and less money with which to provide jobs for the unemployed. I hope that they will take that into account. Secondly, it is recognised that if people continue to demand more and more public spending for their constituents, they are at the same time demanding more taxes and contributions from their constituents.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady answer the question that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not answer yesterday? By how much will the measures that the Chancellor introduced yesterday increase the right hon. Lady's own tax and price index?

The Prime Minister: By between 1 and 1½ per cent.

Mr. Foot: How will increases on such a scale, together with increased rents, rates, health charges and national insurance contributions, assist the fight against inflation?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman always tries to have it both ways. He always poses as a person who can hand out benefits to his constituents, but then refuses to allow the Supply to pay for them. The answer is exactly the same as the answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton). If the right hon. Gentleman demands more benefits for his constituents, he is, at the same time, demanding higher contributions to pay for those benefits.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the private sector, both corporate and individual, is becoming increasingly alarmed at being forced to pay not only the monopolistic prices but to finance the public, or the Socialistic sector of the economy, and that it is looking for strong and urgent privatisation? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that that hope is not in vain?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, the efficiency of the private sector has gone well ahead of the efficiency of the public sector. Consequently, price increases in the private sector are much below price increases in the public sector. That is one reason why we are now taking powers to refer more of the public sector


to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and why we are going ahead with more measures to privatise organisations such as the BNOC and to take away the gas monopoly.

Mr. David Steel: What advice can the Prime Minister give to students, following yesterday's announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, given that some of their unavoidable costs, such as hall fees, have gone up by about 40 per cent. in the past three years, and that the allowance being given to them for next year is only a fraction of the Government's own estimate of inflation? What about the low-income families with sons and daughters at colleges and universities?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend announced yesterday, student grants will go up by 4 per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes it to go up by more, he must say what else he would cut or what other increase in taxes he would impose.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that last month male unemployment in my constituency was 19·1 per cent. and that women's unemployment was 12·3 per cent.? Since then, the closure of Guy Motors has been announced, which means that another 800 jobs will be lost, and another firm—Britool—is in grave danger because of the probable withdrawal of the temporary employment subsidy. What words of solace and comfort does the right hon. Lady have for my constituents? I want no nonsense about wanting it both ways. My constituents want jobs and work, and that means investment of public money. What will she do about that?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady probably saw recently, imports have risen. This country needs to get a larger share of our own market for those who produce in this country. That means moderate wage settlements and highly efficient companies. That is the way to get more jobs.

Mr. John Townend: When my right hon. Friend considers Lord Scarman's remarks about positive discrimination, will she remember the 22 per cent. unemployed people in Bridlington town in my constituency, who have never rioted and who have just as much right to the Government's sympathy and aid as have the unemployed people in Brixton who, if they get on to a tube, have far more job opportunities than exist in the North-East?

The Prime Minister: I shall most certainly do that. Nothing in the difficult unemployment situation warranted rioting in any part of the United Kingdom. We are very conscious that many parts of the United Kingdom face difficult problems and that they must have the same amount of attention as those where riots occurred. It is much more difficult to get employers to go to places where riots have occurred than it is to persuade them to go to places where peace and good social conditions exist.

Engagements

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I have just given.

Mr. Skinner: Has the Prime Minister seen the report inThe Times today about 97 young children having died

while waiting for bone marrow transplants at Westminster hospital? Is that not the most tragic commentary of all on the operation of market forces and monetarism? Why does not the Prime Minister show some compassion for once and give a categoric assurance that sufficient money will go to the regional health authorities involved so that the doctors in those hospitals are not placed in the dilemma of having to choose one child to live out of every seven?

The Prime Minister: I saw that report and I was as concerned as the hon. Gentleman. I remind him that, since the time of his Government, spending on the National Health Service has increased. The number of doctors is up by 1,000. The number of nurses and midwives is up by 21,000. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, a report by Professor Merrison on the future of the Health Service pointed out that one could spend just about the whole of the gross national product on health care, such is the great advance in technology and the expense of some of these operations.

Mr. Stallard: The right hon. Lady is harder than ever.

The Prime Minister: Harder than ever? To have 21,000 more nurses and midwives and 1,000 more doctors is hard? We have much lower waiting lists for operations. How very hard Labour Members must have been.
I come back to the question that I was asked from a standing position. I am well aware of the excellent work done by Professor Hobbs at Westminster hospital. It is one of the few places where work on bone marrow transplants is done. We are looking at the future development of the service, and I am pleased to say Sir Douglas Black has agreed to chair the working party to consider the need for further bone marrow transplant units outside London so that this situation does not occur again. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will have the grace to be pleased—but I doubt it.

Mr. Jessel: Since, tomorrow, the Army Board is due to consider the future of military bands, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the tremendous value of these bands, not only for Army morale and recruiting, but because of their role on Royal and other occasions in lifting the spirits of the nation? As these bands are the envy of the world and attract visitors here, thus helping the balance of payments, does my right hon. Friend consider it right that the entire cost should fall on the defence budget? Can that matter be looked at?

The Prime Minister: I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend says about the popularity and importance of Army military bands, and also their importance and popularity overseas. I should point out that they are also trained as medical orderlies. So they have another role. I shall draw the attention of the Ministry of Defence to what my hon. Friend says, so that in considering future expenditure on defence the matter may be borne in mind.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the demand made by the Labour parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey that extra-parliamentary action should be taken to challenge the Government's right to rule? Does she agree that such an irresponsible demand should be condemned by all supporters of British parliamentary democracy and should not be condoned by craven silence?

The Prime Minister: I confess that I have not seen the remarks attributed to the honourable person who is


standing for that seat. If those remarks are true, we in this House, who believe in parliamentary democracy, assume that anyone wanting to come here would also believe in it.

Mr. Foot: Since the matter has been raised, may I say that the individual concerned is not an endorsed member of the Labour Party, and, so far as I am concerned, never will be endorsed?[Interruption.] May I add that, as the Labour Party has played the leading part in the establishment and sustenance of parliamentary democracy, we do not need any instructions on the matter from skin-deep democrats on the Conservative Benches or defectors on this side?

Later——

Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that in the exchanges at the end of Prime Minister's Questions I used the term "not an endorsed member". It must be clear from the context that what I wished to say was "not an endorsed candidate". I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make the correction so that Hansard may record this statement as well as the remarks that I made previously.

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the engineering workers and the tanker drivers on their acceptance of realistic pay settlements, by which action they have shown greater wisdom and common sense than has been shown in some of the views put forward by their trade union leaders?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I congratulate those workers. I note that the figures that were released by the CBI yesterday showed pay settlements of about 5 to 7 per cent. That is good news. It is only by moderate pay settlemments that we shall stay competitive and get more jobs in the economy.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we have had such a good question hour without the aid of the digital clock, will you consider dismantling it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I deeply appreciate that conservative question. I shall give it my radical attention.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 7 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.
TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on public expenditure proposals for 1982–83.
Motion on EEC Documents 9675/81 and 4632/79 on carriage of goods by road.
WEDNESDAY 9 DECEMBER—Supply (6th Allotted Day):
Until about 7 o'clock a debate on the common fisheries policy and the need to safeguard the interests of the British fishing industry, and afterwards a debate on people, heavy lorries and the environment.
Both will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY I0 DECEMBER—A debate on the report of the Scarman inquiry on the Brixton disorders 10–12 April 1981, Cmnd. 8427.
FRIDAY II DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 14 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that subject to progress of business, it is intended to propose that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Wednesday 23 December until Monday 18 January 1982.

[For the debate on the carriage of goods by road: EEC Documents 9675/81 and 4632/79.

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee:

Second Report, Session 1978–79, HC 159-ii, paragraph 4.

Second Report, Session 1981–82, HC 21-ii, paragraph 1.]

Mr. Foot: I thank the Leader of the House for responding to two of our requests and for providing time for debates on the economic statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Scarman report. We are grateful for the fact that he has responded to our two proposals, but I should like to raise three other questions.
First, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to provide time for a debate following any judgment by the House of Lords on local government and public transport? Secondly, in view of the leakages or revelations—or whatever they may be—about the Government's possible proposals for the National Health Service, will he give us an undertaking that there will be an early debate on that subject? Finally, has the right hon. Gentleman any news for us, apart from the leakages, about the present state of the Local Government Finance Bill that seems to be being mangled in some other meetings elsewhere? We hope that the mangling process will go on and that the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps offer the nation the Christmas present of abandoning the Bill altogether.

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the debates that have been arranged for next Tuesday and Thursday. I made it plain

that we thought that a debate on the Scarman report would be necessary, and in response to the right hon. Gentleman's request we have brought it forward to the earliest possible date. We have taken a similar decision in relation to the public expenditure announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday.
I have nothing to add to what I said last week and previously about the House of Lords judgment, which has not yet been given, as far as I know. We must consider that matter when the judgment is given. I also have nothing further to say about the Local Government Finance Bill. Consultations on that Bill continue.
What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last Tuesday on the National Health Service is in no sense new. It was announced ages ago that the review was in hand. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was a debate on the National Health Service about two weeks ago.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will it be possible next week or the week after to have a debate on parliamentary elections to bring in the question of redistribution of seats and also to make it possible for the Opposition to explain how a selected candidate is not an endorsed candidate and whether the Leader of the Opposition was talking about the person selected in Bermondsey or about Tariq Ali, who has applied to join the Labour Party?

Mr. Pym: I am sure that that would be an interesting subject for debate, which many hon. Members would enjoy. However, I must disappoint my hon. Friend. I regret that I shall not be able to find Government time for that debate.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Leader of the House aware that during the Second Reading debate on the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Bill the Minister dealing with the Bill said that in his view the proper time to discuss the Government's programme for building nuclear power stations was not in discussion on that Bill but in the debate on the Select Committee's report on that subject? When will that debate take place?

Mr. Pym: I am sorry, but I cannot make an announcement at present. However, I appreciate that at some point we shall have to have that debate.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Leader of the House recollect that the useful experiment with Special Standing Committees that we had last year, which was enormously successful with the Criminal Attempts Bill and with two other Bills, has not been perpetuated this Session? In view of support for it by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman bring forward the necessary motion quickly?

Mr. Pym: My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), introduced the experiment in the House. As his successor I should like to say that I watched carefully the experience of the House during the experiment. I have a good deal of sympathy with the idea behind it, but it is not my present intention to reintroduce the Standing Order relating to Special Standing Commmittees at the moment. However, I should be prepared to do so if the Government identified a suitable Bill for the use of the procedure either in this Session or in a future Session.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: May I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision in view of the undoubted success of the new procedure, which must not be allowed to fall into desuetude? Is not this a matter for the House to decide? Should it not have the opportunity to consider whether it wishes to make the procedure permanent? May I ask my right hon. Friend to put down a motion so that the House can come to a decision on the matter?

Mr. Pym: Various views are held about the procedure. There is no question of allowing it to fall into desuetude, as my right hon. Friend suggested. I indicated carefully in my reply that I had an open mind about the matter. At the moment, there is not a suitable Bill, but if it seemed appropriate to use procedure, for any Bill in this Session or in the future I shall be prepared to put down the appropriate motion.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a debate on hon. Members' secretarial and research allowances because many hon. Members are finding increasing difficulty, with the Government's present economic policies, which are putting many people in the dole queues and causing different sorts of deprivation, in dealing with all the mail? The amount of secretarial help that we receive is not enough to cope with our enormous mailbag and the tragic personal cases—we must deal with more of them day by day. Will the right hon. Gentleman give urgent consideration to that matter?

Mr. Pym: Where it is appropriate, recent practice has been to have a debate once a year, usually in the summer. We had such a debate last summer. I doubt whether there will be an opportunity in the immediate future, but this matter may well arise again during the summer.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: As rumour has it that the House will not return from the Christmas Recess until 18 January, will my right hon. Friend explain why he said that we would be sitting until 23 December? Many hon. Members like to fulfil constituency duties before Christmas; and one or two also have families.

Mr. Pym: All I announced was that, subject to the progress of business, the Christmas Adjournment would be proposed on a certain date and that it would end on a certain date. I thought that a bit of advance warning about what was in mind would be helpful to the House. I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not approve of the dates that I have chosen.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Does next week's timetable mean that the Government have now abandoned their crazy Bill on local government finance?

Mr. Pym: No, Sir.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is it not unfortunate that the House has never had an opportunity to discuss the workings of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act since its enactment? In view of continuing anxiety about the handling, transportation and processing of hazardous materials, has his attention been drawn to early-day motion 100, in the name of myself and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry)?
[That this House, concerned that there is still no effective legislation to govern the storage, transport and

use of hazardous substances seven years after the Flixborough explosion, recognises the urgent need for regulations to safeguard the interests of the general public, provide adequate protection for those working with such substances and to amend the inadequacies in the planning law as it now stands, which often enables firms to commence the processing of these lethal substances without needing to apply for new planning permission; and therefore, as a first step, calls for the immediate presentation to Parliament of draft Regulations on Hazardous Installations as drawn up by the Health and Safety Commmission in 1978.]
Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on this important subject?

Mr. Pym: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and my hon. Friend have raised that important matter from time to time. Regulations for the conveyance of dangerous substances come into force in January, and draft regulations on the notification of hazardous installations should be submitted to Ministers early next year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is studying proposals from the Health and Safety Commission for changes to the planning laws. This is very much a live subject in the minds of Ministers. The regulations may provide an opportunity for debate, but I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's representations.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: With my natural modesty, I hope that I do not have to travel to the Front Bench to ask my question. In view of the impending danger to a number of British cultural institutions—we have had warnings from the director of the British Museum, and from the director of the British Film Archive about the survival of the nitrate film stock—when can we have an urgent debate on the funding of the arts in Britain, which is a critical matter?

Mr. Pym: I am afraid that Government time will not be available in the near future, but I observe that next Friday, on Monday week and on other days there will be Private Members' motions for which hon. Members can ballot. One of those occasions might be appropriate. It is not that I do not agree that this is an important subject, but the pressure of time is such that, frankly, I doubt whether Government time can be found in the near future.

Mr. Alan Clark: If my right hon. Friend caught the mood of the House on Tuesday when the Secretary of State for Transport presented his paper quaintly but misleadingly called "Lorries, People and the Environment", and as we are to debate this next Wednesday, does he not agree that the sooner that the paper changes colour from white to green the better?

Mr. Pym: When answering questions on Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said that draft regulations would shortly be circulated for consultation, which will require a minimum of two months. He indicated that after that the House would need to reach conclusions. That seems to put the position in a fairly clear perspective.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman table a motion to reconvene the Select Committee on Procedure so that we can deal with the point that was raised the other night when business collapsed following an early Adjournment?

Mr. Pym: I intend to re-establish the Select Committee on Procedure dealing with Supply as soon as possible. Discussions about that are taking place through the usual channels. It is not my intention at present to set up a separate Select Committee on Procedure to deal with other matters, although that is always a possibility for the future, if for any reason the House so decides.

Mr. Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend match his commendable efforts to limit the amount of business in the Chamber by containing the amount of parliamentary business outside it? Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Education and Science was unable to meet a group of Members this week because no room was available and that next Monday I am invited to an important meeting that is to be held in an alcove? Can he not do anything to check the incontinent tendency of parliamentarians to keep meeting like this?

Mr. Pym: I think that that is beyond my power, which is perhaps just as well. Equally, from the other point of view, I should be reluctant to see any further extension of this Palace in order to provide even more facilities for hon. Members to have meetings of that kind. There is no doubt that an increasing number of groups are coming to the House and in various ways they find advantage in doing so. It my be that we are reaching the stage when the House will want to consider what action, if any, ought to be taken about it, but in the meantime I believe that things should be left as they are.

Mr. John Garrett: The right hon. Gentleman will know that on Monday we had an important debate on the rights of the House to examine and scrutinise public expenditure. As every speech in that debate, other than the one from the Treasury Bench, supported the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee that our powers of scrutiny should be strengthened, when may we expect legislation on that issue? Secondly, why did not the right hon. Gentleman intervene in that debate? This was clearly a House of Commons matter, in that it sought to strengthen the powers of the House. Surely it is part of the right hon. Gentleman's job to strengthen and develop our powers of scrutiny rather than to leave the matter to the Treasury.

Mr. Pym: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that was an important debate. I think that I followed precedent by my non-intervention. The normal practice is for Treasury Ministers to speak to the subject, and sometimes Ministers from other Departments. I think that that happened on this occasion with the Department of the Environment. The Government's mind is certainly not closed on these matters. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have taken careful note of what was said on that occasion. In a debate of that kind, it is not unusual for the view expressed by the Committee to receive more prominence than any contrary view.
The Government and the Public Accounts Committee have a common interest in better control of public spending and better value for money. I realise that at present they do not see fully eye to eye, but I believe that the differences are as much about means as they are about ends. It is right that my right hon. and learned Friend and I should consider the important matters raised on that occasion.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call all those hon. Members who have been standing in their places.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: As I understand that the work of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland has been completed and the recommendations submitted, when may we expect the appropriate order to be laid before the House?

Mr. Pym: I require notice of that question.

Mr. Michael English: I think that the whole House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's ready acceptance of ministerial responsibility for Tariq Ali. Will he complete the experiment on Bills by referring, say, three to Select Committees, either existing ones or ad hoc ones, under the existing permanent Standing Order? When we have had the debate on expenditure on the "instant reaction" principle next Tuesday, can we have another debate—there is precedent for this—after the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Calm), has had the opportunity to consider its economic implications?

Mr. Pym: I do not know whether there will be time for a debate on the hon. Gentleman's last point. As to the possibility of referring Bills to Select Committees, it is not my intention to do so, at any rate in this Session.

Mr. Nigel Forman: As one who has had direct experience of the new Public Bill procedure with the colloquially named "nodules Bill", will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many hon. Members view this procedure sympathetically and think that it has a useful part to play in our procedures? Will he therefore bear it in mind for a forthcoming Bill on data protection, which is urgently needed?

Mr. Pym: As I said, I am not unsympathetic. The success of the procedure depends very much on the choice of the Bill. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I have told the House in all frankness how I am looking at the matter during this Session. I do not have a completely closed mind.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement to the House on whether the Government are to go ahead with the purchase of the D5 or the C4 Trident missile? Is the Leader of the House aware that if the larger missile is purchased about £94 million worth of development work will have to be abandoned? Does he not accept that it would be welcome if the Secretary of State for Defence were to come to the House and announce the abandonment of the whole lunatic project? Does he not further accept that at least we would then be sure that Westminster hospital would receive the necessary finance for children needing transplants?

Mr. Pym: I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot resist his weekly crack of that sort. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, that the Government are considering, with the United States, the possibility of the D5. No conclusion has yet been reached, nor is it imminent. It is very much in Ministers' minds and, in the fullness of time, when conclusions have been reached, naturally the House will be informed.

Mr. Roger Moate: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that we have already had years of consultation about heavier lorries? Is he not aware that there is a great deal to be said for the House of Commons reaching a decision on the matter at the earliest possible opportunity? Does he not also accept that it is a question that cannot be, nor should be, settled on party lines? Therefore, will he do what he can to encourage a free vote on the matter when it is debated next week?

Mr. Pym: The last point is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—that there should be two or three months for the White Paper to be considered—is reasonable. At the end of that time we shall come to a conclusion. I do not believe that that is a very long time for my hon. Friend to have to wait.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Leader of the House have less than a closed mind on the subject of Special Standing Committees? Is he aware, for instance, that last year the procedure radically changed the nature of the "sus" Bill after pressure from both sides of the Committee? It made it a very much better Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the forthcoming Criminal Law Bill is suitable for consideration in a Special Standing Committee? What are his criteria for the suitability of Bills?

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman is fair about that, and the Bill to which he referred was a successful part of the experiment. However, as I said earlier, I do not envisage any particularly suitable Bill at present. I have an open mind, and there is no point in putting down the motion that I have been requested to put down unless there is a good prospect of using the procedure. If minds change and an opportunity of which we wish to take advantage arises, I shall be prepared to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the utter dismay felt by Her Majesty's loyal subjects in Gibraltar at the Government's decision—in answer to a highly unplanted question by me—to close the dockyard and to restrict the use of air space? I understood from Gibraltar this morning that the Chief Minister is coming here next week to see Ministers about it. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the House is properly advised on the matter and kept informed about what alternative provisions will be made for the people of Gibraltar?

Mr. Pym: I shall convey my hon. Friend's representation to both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the Leader of the House seriously consider asking the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement to the House about the hours that junior doctors are working, bearing in mind that there is an urgent need for a statement because patients are being put at risk?

Mr. Pym: I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's representations to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Anthony Steen: May I direct the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends?
[That this House believes that the pressing problems facing our cities can best be tackled by implementing some of the proposals contained in a recently published study `New Life For Old Cities' endorsed by 62 Conservative honourable Members and Members of the European Parliament representing urban constituencies which offers new hope for the regeneration of our cities, by turning to people rather than Government and relying more on private enterprise than public bureaucracy; and notes that included amongst the recommendations are: (a) the rapid release by auction on the open market of hoarded public land surplus to requirement, (b) promoting city renewal through self-financing private enterprise agencies which would contract out to existing local businesses and professional firms the job of marketing the city's assets, (c) making urban renewal attractive to private investment by offering cheaper loans through issuing tax-exempt revenue bonds, (d) offering rate holidays not just in enterprise zones but to single-plant family firms elsewhere and inner city retailers who ultimately will pay full commercial rates but only if their businesses prosper, (e) encouraging private business to build new factories, offices and homes in the inner city thus reducing the 60,000 acres of agricultural land and green field sites lost each year to urban sprawl, (f) halting demolition and instead encouraging local authorities to sell off decaying property for £1·00 for those (homesteaders) willing to repair and live in them, and making similar arrangements for shopsteaders to enable run-down shops scheduled for demolition to be saved, (g) encouraging building societies to lend on older houses and discontinue 'red-lining' (that is refusing loans for house ownership in run-down areas), (h) enabling sitting tenants of flats and maisonettes in outer council housing estates to purchase their freeholds for a nominal sum in return for a share in the block's management and upkeep thus saving local authority expenditure and (i) contracting out to private enterprise those local authority services which can be done better and cheaper by private enterprise; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to assume a catalytic role so as to enable public and private enterprise in partnership to realise their full potential, to reduce those checks and controls which militate against new development and to involve more fully those people living and working in cities in the total revitalisation process.]
It offers new life for old cities, not only the inner cities but the middle and outer cities, too, where the majority of the population now live. Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate on paragraph(f) of the motion which suggests a policy of homesteading, shopsteading and flatsteading to replace compulsory purchase and demolition by local authorities?

Mr. Pym: That is obviously an important subject, but I cannot provide Government time to hold such a debate in the House. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has spent a great deal of time in the inner cities. The matter is high in his priorities and it is being fully and carefully considered. If my hon. Friend wishes to mount such a debate, he must enter the ballot—I know that he does anyway—and hope that he is lucky in the draw.

Council House Sales (Norwich)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the right to buy under chapter 1 of part I of the Housing Act 1980, which came into force as long ago as 3 October 1980.
I have today sent a notice to Norwich city council that I intend to use my powers under section 23 of the Act—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful".]—to intervene to assist secure tenants of the council to exercise their right to buy their homes. I have taken this very serious step with the greatest reluctance, and only after prolonged correspondence and discussions with the council over many months.
Complaints about delays and difficulties from individual Norwich tenants began to reach my Department in February this year. Accordingly, in April the council was formally asked for information on its past and expected future progress in dealing with right to buy cases.
Since May, as well as extensive correspondence, there have been three separate meetings with the council—one at official level, one with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and one with me. During this period complaints have continued to come in from tenants about delays and difficulties in exercising their right to buy. It appears that tenants currently have to wait a very long time, about a year, before they receive a section 10 offer notice, and delays can occur thereafter before completion is achieved.
On 28 July a formal warning was sent to the city council that I was contemplating using my powers of intervention under section 23 of the Act. Following the meeting with me on 5 November, the city council forecast that outstanding valuations, which are required before section 10 notices can be issued, should be completed by June 1982 but with the possible exception of some cases which it identified as difficult. One hundred and one cases were referred to at the November meeting as difficult.
At the end of October, the city council had admitted the right to buy in only 884 cases, a smaller number of cases than in many authorities, but still had 652 offer notices to send out. Notwithstanding adjustments that have been made to the monthly rate of issuing section 10 offer notices and the revision of some of its procedures, the city council's performance to date in issuing section 10 notices is among the worst of all authorities whose progress has been taken up by my Department. Moreover, its projected future performance, on which it has declined to give any assurance of further improvement, appears to me worse than that of any other authority which has been given formal warning that I am contemplating using my powers under section 23.
Having considered matters very carefully it appears to me, whether I have regard to Norwich alone or Norwich in comparison with other authorities, that secure tenants of Norwich city council have or may have difficulty in exercising their right to buy effectively and expeditiously, and I have accordingly sent them a notice of intervention.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the Secretary of State aware that this high-handed action is completely unjustified following the months of negotiations that have wasted the valuable time of his officials and

those of Norwich city council? The council has taken many steps to speed up its action under the Act, including several actions demanded by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that offer notices are now going out at seven times the rate that was being achieved earlier in the year? Is it not a fact that the difference in time between the right hon. Gentleman's demands on offer notices and the ability of the council to comply now boils down to a mere four months? How does that justify his intervention as housing commissar? Why has he decided to pick as a scapegoat one of the most responsible and progressive of housing authorities when the latest figures, which he presented to the House three weeks ago, show that 53 Conservative-controlled local authorities had sold no houses and that 19 Conservative-controlled authorities had either made no return or nil returns under the Act, including the authority within the constituency of the Minister for Housing and Construction, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley)?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement is not the last word on this matter as the Norwich council intends to test his action in the courts? Does he accept that in two and a half years he has forced up council rents by 117 per cent., that mortgage rates are at a historic record high level, that unemployment in the building industry is higher than ever before and that the housing programme is at its lowest ebb since before the First World War? Why is he wasting time on this petty distraction when he should have been devoting all his energies to putting right the housing shambles that he has created? Why is he so worried about a pebble in his shoe in the middle of an avalanche that he has created?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the House will appreciate that, far from being high handed, I have gone to considerable lengths at meetings, which in the end I have held myself, to avoid the need to intervene. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said that the rate of issuing section 10 notices is now seven times greater than it was earlier in the year. The House may ask legitimately what the rate was earlier in the year.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the difference between my demands on offer notices and the council's ability to comply is only four months. He has failed to take into account that that refers to straightforward cases only and that no timetable has been given for those cases which are not. As for a possible challenge in the courts, that is entirely a matter for the city authority. It must make up its mind.
The right hon. Gentleman always refers to the constituency that is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), the Minister for Housing and Construction. The authority within that constituency is not selling under the right to buy because it is proceeding on a voluntary basis under the original arrangements that applied before the right-to-buy scheme. However, it may help the House to know the figures within my hon. Friend's authority. I understand that 385 applications have been received and that 28 have been withdrawn, leaving a net 357, which are still extant. Offers have been made in respect of 306, which is 86 per cent. of all inquiries.
The right hon. Gentleman pursues his characteristic denunciation of the approach that we have made. I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that he regards


the right to buy as of such significance that he has now persuaded the Labour Party to promise to remove from all council tenants the right to buy. I understand that he has gone as far as to say that the Labour Party, if ever reelected, will interfere with the existing contractual arrangements.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement. Far from being high handed, is he aware that many of us have thought that it was high time that he made use of his powers of intervention? Does he understand that he will be given every encouragement from his right hon. and hon. Friends should he feel it necessary to intervene in respect of other local authorities?

Mr. Heseltine: I much appreciate my hon. Friend's kind remarks. He will know of my reluctance to use powers that are available, but I have to remember that in the end it is my duty to uphold the law and to ensure that tenants receive their legitimate entitlements.

Mr. David Ennals: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Norwich city council is implementing the right-to-buy provisions both efficiently and expeditiously? Does he know that some of the statistics contained in his statement are incorrect concerning the number of evaluations that have been carried out? Does he appreciate that last month the council completed 90 evaluations and that there have been 90 offers for tenants? Is he further aware that there are several Tory-controlled local authorities whose records are substantially worse than that of Norwich city council? Does he remember that he told me that since I September there have been only five criticisms or complaints received by city council tenants? Why has he picked on Norwich? Is this not deliberate party political discrimination?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the statistics upon which I have to operate are those provided by the Norwich city council. He will be aware also that I have had to act in respect of Norwich because, when its performance is compared with that of other authorities, I consider it to be among the worst in delivering the right-to-buy scheme to council tenants. That is a fact that has been reinforced by the number of complaints that I have received from tenants.

Mr. John Major: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I spoke at a public meeting in Norwich earlier this year to several hundred tenants who were bitterly angry about the way in which their applications to buy had been treated? Is he further aware that those tenants will welcome his statement? Would it not be for the general good if the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) were to say unequivocally and willingly from the Dispatch Box that he will request Labour councils throughout the country to comply with the present law?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ardwick would want all authorities in every political party to comply with the law. I am much more concerned that he should come to the Dispatch Box to remove some of the barriers to a better housing policy that his party is imposing on the housing scene. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the efforts that he has made to draw the attention of council tenants to the rights that are now theirs by

statute. He has given us a manifestation of the concern in one area that those tenants should be able to get their rights.

Mr. John Garrett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is nothing more than a vindictive action against a Labour authority with an incomparable housing record compared with the records of other authorities of its size? Is he aware that the rate of making offers has substantially improved, which shows the willingness of the council to co-operate with his Department? Why has he not picked on Tory authorities that have a slower rate of making offers than the Norwich city council? Will he accept that Norwich has been picked on for an authoritarian attack on political grounds, that that is part of his conscious destruction of the powers of local government and that it is fundamentally undemocratic?

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot accept that it is fundamentally undemocratic when a Secretary of State intervenes to uphold the legal rights of individual citizens. I do not believe that it can be argued seriously that I am being vindictive. I have taken such care and such time to try to persuade the authority to try to improve on the performance which has been a subject of concern to me. This is not a matter of party politics. I should be prepared to move whatever the political complexion of the authority if the results of its sales efforts seemed to justify it.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his decision will be noted and welcomed in Norwich and by council tenants within other authorities who are facing difficuly in buying? They may follow his suggestion, including my own constituents, and make their complaints known to him in the hope that he will take further action.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that I am in contact with a number of authorities. I have had to issue warnings to a number of them in the hope that they will seek to remedy the matters of concern without its being necessary for me to intervene. I understand that my actions today will be seen as a step in the direction of the implementation of the right to buy on a wider basis than simply that of Norwich. However, I repeat what I have said and hope that it will not be necessary for me to widen the intervention that I have announced today.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that his disgraceful dictatorial action will be bitterly resented by local authorities throughout the country as an affront to local democracy? Would it not be more appropriate if the right hon. Gentleman worried a little about the hundreds of thousands of people on the waiting lists who are desperately waiting to be rehoused and who will have to wait much longer as a result of the Government's action which has meant that local authorities cannot provide the accommodation needed?

Mr. Heseltine: Before the hon. Member gets carried away with words such as dictatorial suppression, will he understand that as the Secretary of State I have to take into account the individual rights of citizens in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the determination to ensure that the law is enforced will be warmly welcomed on the Government Benches? Is he further aware that the Social Democratic


and Liberal Parties are so interested in the rights of tenants to buy their homes that there is not one of their members in the Chamber?

Mr. Heseltine: I have heard my hon. Friend's comments, but he would not expect me to consider party political matters in this situation.

Mr. Kaufman: As the Secretary of State has asked me about my attitude to the law, is he aware that throughout the passage of the legislation I have made it clear that the Labour Party is opposed to a breach of a law on this matter? Is he further aware that no local authority has broken the law and that there is no proof that Norwich has broken the law? The legal action taken by Norwich may prove that he has broken the law. The only person proved to have done that so far is the right hon. Gentleman, who was found in a recent High Court action to have broken the law and he is doing nothing to rectify the position.

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Member is so anxious to defend himself that he misunderstands the situation. I am complying with the recent legal finding in a way that I believe will be totally within the law, as he would expect. I am delighted that he is keen on the maintenance of the law. He must understand that the law gives me certain rights on behalf of citizens, just as it gives rights to certain local authorities.

Mr. Tony Durant: Will the Secretary of State accept it from me that Conservative Members welcome this move with great enthusiasm? Will he remind the House that what we are discussing, despite the comments from the Opposition, is the desire of ordinary people to buy their homes? An Act to make that possible has been passed by Parliament and we should support it and implement it as soon as possible.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware that my position means considering the rights of individual citizens. That is the purpose that the law envisaged when it gave me powers of intervention.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Secretary of State accept that his smarmy appearance at the Dispatch Box fools nobody? His proposal is an example of a deliberate political vendetta against a successful Labour-controlled local authority. He has repeatedly expressed concern for the rights of the individual citizen. Therefore, will he tell us what manpower in his Department is engaged in furthering the rights of those citizens who want the tenancy of a council house but are kept waiting by the inefficiency of his policies? We now have the lowest public sector house building starts since the war. What is he doing for the rights of individual citizens who are on the dole, who have building skills and who want to be put to work on building houses in the public sector? His rotten Government's rotten policies are preventing them from being put to work.

Mr. Heseltine: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman in the calmest voice that I can muster. The persecution complex which now riddles the Labour Party will do it no good; nor will it help to heap personal abuse on me. Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away with rewriting history about the cuts in capital programmes of the sort he

describes, will he say why he supported the Labour Government who halved the capital expenditure of local government?

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend consider action in the case of my Socialist-controlled district council, which appears disinclined to fulfil the spirit of the law, to the obvious frustration of the tenants who wish to exercise their legal rights as early as possible?

Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned for his constituents and, under the law, I must consider representations on behalf of any tenants who cannot fulfil their legal entitlement. I should be prepared to do that whenever I felt that the law was not being fully implemented.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When the Secretary of State puts the commissioner into Norwich, will he also instruct him to take evidence from the Norwich people who are on the waiting list for a house? There must be evidence about the hardship under which they live. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that such people cannot wait? They desperately need housing and it is the right hon. Gentleman's policies which are obstructing their desires.

Mr. Heseltine: I should be prepared to consider all the representations made to me provided that they were relevant to the discharge of my duties. However, I should have to make the point to anyone who said what the hon. Member just did that the revenue from the sale of council houses puts hundreds of millions of pounds for housing purposes in local authorities' hands.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the four hon. Members who have been standing in their places.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware that his demonstration of his readiness to use the reserve powers firmly will be noted with great pleasure by my constituents? He will be aware that the Secretary of State for Wales enjoys similar powers in relation to councils which appear to be experiencing extraordinary difficulties, at the very least, in implementing the Act.

Mr. Heseltine: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is here, and will share my admiration for the way that my hon. Friend advances the case for his constituents. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Wales is as determined as I am to carry out in full the duties that the law puts on us.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Has Norwich council been divorcing the garages beside the houses from the houses themselves and saying that tenants who want to buy cannot buy the houses? Will Norwich council do the same as Greenwich council in forcibly moving elderly people who applied with their more elderly parents to buy their homes—the council's grounds being only that the elderly parent died during the time that the council was not fulfilling the law? Will he consider intervening in Greenwich, as in Norwich, because the delays there are unacceptable to the tenants who want to exercise their right to buy their homes?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend's constituents will be grateful to him for putting their case today in the way that


he has done before. I am not satisfied with the position in Greenwich, and that is one of the authorities with which I have had discussions about the rate of progress. However, I have no further statement to make today.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend care to compare the record in the sale of council houses of the Conservative-controlled London borough of Ealing, which has now sold about 2,000 houses with a smaller staff, with that of Norwich? Will he comment on the fact that some of my constituents who live in Northolt, but in council houses belonging to the London borough of Brent, cannot buy them because that council has reversed the decisions which it previously made?

Mr. Heseltine: I am always glad to hear the achievements of authorities which are enthusiastically applying the right to buy. I am aware, as the House will be, that there have been about 400,000 applications under the right-to-buy provisions, which shows the wide benefits that council tenants see in the policy. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the problem. I shall keep that point under surveillance, as I do with all the other responsibilities that I have under the Act.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Despite the comments by hon. Members on both sides, does my right hon. Friend agree that what is happening in a major way at Norwich is certainly happening in nearly all constituencies under Labour-controlled councils? We applaud your actions and are relieved that at long last you are doing something about it.

Mr. Heseltine: I am not sure that you have taken action of the sort to which my hon. Friend referred, Mr. Speaker. If you had, I should of course have appreciated it. Following my hon. Friend's comments, and drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Member for Ardwick said that all authorities should stay within the law, I hope that that message will be widely heard.

BILL PRESENTED

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS)

Mr. Secretary Fowler, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Secretary Tebbit, Mr. Hugh Rossi and Mrs. Lynda Chalker, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with certain contributions payable under the Social Security Act 1975: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 33].

Orders of the Day — SHIPBUILDING BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — Nuclear Industry (Finance) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?

Mr. Palmer: It is not possible to have any debate on the Bill because six names have to be appended to the motion that the Bill be debated, and unfortunately one of them has mysteriously disappeared during the night. It would be useful to have your guidance for the future. If an hon. Member, such as myself, were prepared to make cogent remarks for the improvement of the knowledge of the House, would it be in order for that hon. Member to volunteer to take the place of a missing Member?

Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. Some hon. Members may well regret that they will not have the advantage of hearing him; others may feel differently. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, there were only five names, and I was therefore obliged to put the Question, according to Standing Orders.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — Mr.A.G.Green

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Budgen.]

Mr. Robert Atkins: I am exceedingly grateful, even at this extraordinarily early hour, for the chance to draw the attention of the House—[Interruption.] I regret to note that some of my hon. Friends are leaving the Chamber. I hope that it is not an indication of their view of the subject that I am about to raise. As I was saying, I am grateful for this early opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the grievance felt against the Government—the Home Office in particular—on two counts by a constituent of mine. The first concerns the Home Office's rejection of his possible re-employment as a prison officer. The second concerns the apparent refusal to tell him exactly what were the reasons for that refusal.
I am referring to Mr. Arthur Green, of Fulwood in my constituency, who applied to be a prison officer in December 1975. After training as a prison officer he had his first appointment, in March 1976, to Maidstone. He was quite happy there, apart from a difficult divorce, which followed upon a separation that he had from his first wife. He was enjoying the work at Maidstone prison as a prison officer on ordinary disciplinary duties.
Mr. Green was given custody of his 10-year-old son at the time of the divorce. That would seem to be an indication of his sense of responsibility in the eyes of the court. I am not an expert in these matters, but I gather that it is unusual for a father to be given the custody of one so young.
Mr. Green applied in March 1978 to become a dog handler, and he was sent on a course which, coincidentally, took place at Preston prison. I say "coincidentally" because Mr. Green is a Prestonian and his family come from Preston. Although he was stationed at Maidstone, he was able to return to Preston prison for the dog-handling course. He was there for two months, June and July 1978. There he met his second wife-to-be. Following completion of training, he has transferred to Risley in Manchester with his dog, Major. There were no difficulties at that time with the dog, with Mr. Green's son or, indeed, with the job. He was living in prison quarters about half a mile from Risley prison.
After a time, Mr. Green decided to remarry. Well before doing so, he had established that his wife-tobe—she had also been rather tragically divorced, and had a 2-year-old son—was petrified of dogs, and particularly in regard to her young child. There was nowhere in the house to which they were planning to move, where the dog could be kept, either in the garden or in the house itself, since Mr. Green's wife-to-be was determined not to have a dog of such size near her child, quite apart from the fear that she had herself.
Accordingly, because of the pressure, Mr. Green sought, through the necessary channels at the prison—through the governor and so on—permission to give up dog handling and to return to ordinary disciplinary duties. He was not expecting any preferential treatment, but by the time of his second marriage, in November 1979, no arrangements had been made for him to leave his dog-handling duties. By now he was living with his new wife in Preston. This necessitated a drive of about an hour each way—sometimes twice a day if he was on the 6 am to

2 pm shift and then had to return for the 10 pm to 6 am shift. In winter time, when the weather and road conditions were difficult, the journey would sometimes take even longer than an hour.
Because of Mr. Green's wife's fear of the dog, and the fact that no arrangements had been made for him to come off dog handling, the dog had to sleep in Mr. Green's van outside the house. He fed it, he cared for it and he exercised it properly, until such time as the strain became too much and he began to worry about the effects on the dog and, of course, on himself. Accordingly, he made arrangements for the dog to be looked after at Risley by the other dog handlers who were resident there.
Mr. Green tells me that he assured himself regularly and continuously that the dog Major was fit and well. He also tells me that any of the dog handlers who were at Risley at the time would bear witness to that fact. Indeed, Mr. Green tells me that he received several compliments from his colleagues and others at Risley on the way in which he was coping with his domestic and his job difficulties at this time of remarriage, and with the move and the difficulties with the dog.
In the meantime, Mr. Green had heard from a recently trained dog-handler at Risley, who had been on a subsequent course at Preston, that this dog-handler had met another trainee from the Isle of Wight who stated that he was taking over Mr. Green's dog, Major, in due course. Not unnaturally, my constituent made contact with that prison officer and offered, at his own expense to take the dog direct to the Isle of Wight. The distance from Preston to the Isle of Wight is, of course, considerable. The offer was refused by the prison service.
Incidentally, following Mr. Green's eventual transfer from the dog-handling section he has maintained contact with the Isle of Wight dog handler, and has on many occasions seen the dog Major since he left the section. The dog has been brought to Mr. Green when the dog-handler from the Isle of Wight has had cause to travel north. Mr. Green has kept in contact with the dog on a regular basis. That is surely not an indication of hostility towards the animal.
Mr. Green heard, on very good authority, that a report was written on the dog Major, soon after it left Mr. Green's care, suggesting that the dog was difficult and hostile and ought to be put down. Apparently, no blame was attributed to Mr. Green for that state of affairs.
The Isle of Wight dog-handler pressed hard upon the prison service to be permitted to take over the dog, as he was an experienced man with dogs, having recently been trained specifically as a prison dog-handler. He fought against the suggestion that the dog should be put down. It was not put down, and he eventually took it over. That at least suggests that the dog was difficult and had been causing problems.
I should explain that Mr. Green's new wife's father had died just before Mr. Green's remarriage, and that Mr. Green's new mother-in-law, who cannot drive and is not in the best of health, was wholly reliant upon her daughter, Mr. Green's new wife, to help in the small business that she had in Preston market. Mr. Green's father, of 72 years, was alone in Preston and had recently been seriously ill in hospital for some six weeks.
For the above reasons, among others, he had, at the time of the application to come off dog-handling, applied for a transfer to a prison nearer Preston—because of the


distance involved in travelling, his new wife not being very keen on large dogs and so on, let alone the family reasons to which I have referred. 
Mr. Green was not expecting preferential treatment. He offered to pay any expenses involved in such a move, as opposed to a move at public expense, which, I gather, is the usual procedure. So, on the second occasion, he offered to arrange a move at his own expense, even though he was not expecting the move to take place quickly.
In November 1979 he was taken off dog-handling and therefore returned to ordinary disciplinary duties, which involved his working a normal day. He was reasonably content to await the offer of a move in due course. In December 1979 he was offered a move to London at public expense or to Maidstone at his own expense and was told that he had to decide between these two options as soon as possible. He refused.
I apologise for delaying the House, but I should like to quote from the letter which Mr. Green wrote to me, in which he laid out the problem as he saw it. Although I have sought to explain the case in as careful detail as I can, I believe that quoting Mr. Green's letter will help the Minister to understand the strength of feeling of my constituent in this difficult matter, as it affects him. He says:
In the first place, I applied to go on dogs because as far as I was concerned the Prison Service was my chosen career and I was a dedicated officer and, to me, going on dogs was a 'step up'. I was transferred from Maidstone to Risley without any argument on my part despite having been settled, with my young son, in Maidstone for three years.
I agree that training specialised officers is expensive, however, I should like to point out that part of the expense involved goes towards training the dog. In my case, Major was posted to Albany, to another officer, and there was no discontinuation of Major's services to the prison. Also, Major's new officer was due to go on an eight week course for a new dog (his own having died or been injured) so causing the service to save money on the dog course and also on any overtime that would have occurred by other officers who would have had to have covered for him while he was absent. However, my domestic situation changed and I tried living in Preston while still on dogs to see if it was at all possible to combine the two.
I have mentioned Mr. Green's wife's fear of dogs, and I have spoken of his wife's young child, who was of a boisterous nature and who did not realise the potential danger of the dog. I am sure that I do not have to talk at length about the problems that we have seen recently with dogs that have turned on and savaged young children. It may be only a small number of children who are savaged, and it may not involve many prison dogs, police dogs or trained dogs, but it is a fact that many mothers fear that happening. My own wife feels much the same way.
I have already referred to the health and the stress problems of having to commute between Risley and Preston and the problems that that caused, both financially and in relation to the dog.
Mr. Green continues:
I never really wanted to come off dogs because I enjoyed the work but it was impossible to continue on dogs for the above reasons. I still wished to continue in the Prison Service so I applied for a position at Preston or surrounding area, reverting to discipline duties. When I put in for a transfer from Risley to Preston, I was quite prepared to wait my turn until a discipline position became available. In no way did I expect preferential treatment.
I emphasise what I said earlier.
Mr. Green quotes from the letter that he received from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, which said:

Officers also know that they will be expected to await the appointment of a replacement before reversion can take place.
Mr. Green continues:
In all honesty, I was never told of this ruling concerning awaiting a replacement, and was assured that my position on dogs at Risley 'would be covered.' When my transfer came through to go to London or Maidstone"—
to which I referred earlier——
I appealed and was refused. I felt it was impossible to go to either, because:(a) having only been re-married for a few weeks, I did not wish to leave my new wife and family so soon;(b) it was impossible for my wife to accompany me due to the fact that she had binding commitments in Preston to fulfil.
As I have mentioned, that was due to her mother's ill health, and the necessity of running the business after her father's recent death, and his father's ill health, which necessitated hospitalisation. He continues:
(c) I did not wish to be parted from my children"—
that was the young child of his new marriage, by his second wife, and his son of some 10 or 11 years of age——
at a time when we were all getting used to living with each other in a family atmosphere which both children had been denied up till then. Also, we had just got the children settled in new schools and we did not want them to be disrupted yet again (the elder child (mine)"—
the elder boy—
having been in five different schools in five years).
I suggest that those are sentiments to which anyone in the House could subscribe if he had been through the tragedy of the break-up of a marriage, and facing the serious need to ensure that the children—who always suffer greatest in circumstances such as these—should have their futures protected, particularly at such a young age—2 or 3, and 10 or 11. Surely that is something which all of us would recognise and support. I would define that as being arguably one of the best possible reasons for a sympathetic consideration of this man's case.
Not being an unreasonable man, Mr. Green goes on to say:
My wife and I did give great and careful thought to the matter of me moving either to London or Maidstone by myself so continuing my career in the service, but we really felt that our private lives and those of our children deserved some consideration at the critical stage they were in at that time. I could see no alternative but to resign from the service, even though I considered this as a last resort. I had to do something that was alien to me simply because of the circumstances I found myself in. I honestly believe that no one had better reasons for wanting to be in the North West area than myself, which I was prepared to do at my own expense.
I cannot emphasise this point enough. On two particular occasions, in order to be seen to be reasonable and helpful, Mr. Green offered to take these options at his own expense, even allowing for the fact that he did not expect preferential treatment.
Mr. Green goes on to say:
The prison service has already trained me as a discipline officer and if I was allowed to resume my duties, the money already spent on me would not be wasted.
I am sure that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, heard yesterday, during the debate on the prison service, of the pressures upon prisons at all levels—the staff, the prisoners, those administering them, and those responsible for them. It seems to be amazingly shortsighted that an officer who is so keen and so dedicated to the job has found himself in this position wholly and absolutely against his will.
Mr. Green goes on to say:
I could take up my duties without the Prison Service having to incur any further training expense on my behalf. In view of the present desperate shortage of prison officers, and new recruits, it would seem prudent to allow me to resume my duties,


so fulfilling two causes…the use of an already trained and dedicated officer, and my own cause, in that I am eager to resume service in my chosen career, which, I must stress again, I never wanted to leave in the first place.
Mr. Green goes on to refer to a letter—to which I shall refer shortly—which was sent to me as his Member of Parliament. He says:
it was stated that I was being posted to London because they were so short-staffed there. However, about three weeks after I resigned I was told that officers at Risley were offered Wymott"—
a prison near Leyland, adjacent to Preston—
at public expense. The Home Office must have been aware of the reorganisation at the time I applied for the North West and I cannot understand why I was not offered Wymott at my own expense, which would have answered two problems in one fell swoop. 
Since joining the Prison Service, I have always given 100 per cent. of myself. I believe I have a good record. I have never argued about any of my past postings or detached duties.
My constituent's letter shows his concern about what happened to him. When he was presented with these difficult options he appealed to the governor, the Home Office, the Prison Officers Association and to the welfare section—to no avail. As he says, he had no alternative but to resign from the service, much against his will.
My constituent was told before leaving by the then chief prison officer at Risley, Mr. O'Rourke, that he was very sorry to see Mr. Green going and that he would be prepared to give Mr. Green an excellent reference for any job for which he might apply. I am not wholly familiar with the prison service, but I imagine that the chief prison officer is equivalent to a regimental sergeant major, if I may draw that analogy. I was only a part-time soldier, but I know, had I been a professional soldier, that if the RSM had said to me when I left that he would give me a reference I should have regarded that as the highest accolade that I could have within the ambit of my regiment or battalion. I am sure that my hon. Friends recognise that when a chief prison officer is prepared to offer such a reference it is a demonstration of how highly my constituent is thought of, at least by the chief prison officer.
Only three weeks after leaving the prison service my constituent was told by a friend, still at Risley, that prison officers were being transferred to Wymott at public expense. One must bear in mind that on two separate occasions Mr. Green had offered to move at private expense—out of his own pocket—rather than incur public expenditure. Not unnaturally, when hearing this Mr. Green re-applied for a post as a prison officer, and/or a trade officer and as a civilian bricklayer at Wymott. He was not even granted an interview.
In September 1980, Mr. Green went to the jobcentre where he noticed that there was a prison service recruitment drive. He was again refused consideration. This is a man who had been a prison officer, done the job, and been harshly treated, as I maintain that he has, and I am sure that hon. Members, on hearing about the case, will agree. Having done all this, he decided, as a last resort, to come to his Member of Parliament.

Mr. Ian Gow: Quite right too.

Mr. Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his sedentary support. I took up the case and wrote to the Home Office, which, at my instigation, granted Mr. Green another

interview in April 1981. I was subsequently told that he would not be re-employed because of his unsatisfactory performance and cruelty to his dog.
I shall quote from the letters that I have received because the case does bear repeating. It will take me some time to work through my complicated file—I hope that the House will bear with me just a moment. While I am looking for the letter that I wish to quote I shall add that it is difficult for an hon. Member faced with a problem put to him by a constituent to judge in the early stages of the case whether his constituent is trying to pull the wool over his eyes. I am sure that many of my colleagues occasionally find that a case has been going from one hon. Member to another. I must emphasise how strongly I was impressed by my constituent, his complaint and the manner in which he laid the complaint before me. I support him strongly in the applications that he is making.
In a letter written on 21 January 1981 the Under-Secretary of State says:
I should also add that when Mr. Green applied to rejoin the prison service in February of last year the usual inquiries were made of his former Governor as to his suitability for reemployment. As a result it became apparent that although his reports had been generally satisfactory… there was a considerable cause for concern.
That does not seem to tie in with what the chief prison officer had to say. The Under-Secretary continued:
Indeed the deterioration had been such that his local management had been compelled to take Mr. Green's dog away from him because of his neglect of the animal.
My constituent tells me that that is absolutely not true. He says that it bears no relation to what he experienced.
When I passed that letter to Mr. Green he was extremely angry. He took exception to the suggestion that he had been cruel to his dog. I took the matter up with the Home Office again and received a further reply on 27 February which states:
Notwithstanding any impression that Mr. Green gained about the value of his work when he left the Prison Service"—
that again differs from what the governor said—
it is a matter of record that local management do not support his request for re-employment.
Earlier the letter states:
the dog was taken away from him and removed to civilian kennels.
My constituent emphasises strongly that the dog was put in civilian kennels, but that he put it there when he went on a week's leave. He picked it up at the end of that week's leave. The dog was never taken away from him. He took the dog to the kennels and made the necessary arrangements. That clashes with what the Home Office tells me.

Mr. Gow: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's most interesting story. Did not the first letter from the Minister say that the conduct of my hon. Friend's constituent was generally satisfactory? Will my hon. Friend elaborate on that, because the letter seems inconsistent?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have received a number of letters from the Home Office which seem to express different opinions in terms of the original statement that my constituent's performance was generally unsatisfactory. I pointed out that the chief prison officer was prepared to go out on a limb to support my constituent's position to the extent of offering him a reference for any job for which he might apply. That appears to be acknowledged in the second letter. It acknowledges at least that there is a difference of opinion


between the governor and the chief officer about my constituent's performance. There is a difference and I hope that the Minister will explain it.
I am impressed by the manner in which my constituent has put his case to me. He has said that he is prepared for the case to be taken to the highest possible level. I ask hon. Members to consider that. Not every day of the week is a man who has a grievance prepared to allow the full spotlight of public attention to be put upon his case in the national media and the House of Commons. He is prepared for his name to be bandied around. I should think twice about that unless I were absolutely certain that my case was right. That is a sign of how strongly my constituent feels.

Mr. Keith Best: I concur with what my hon. Friend has said. Does he agree that it is regrettable that such cases have to come under the full spotlight? Is it not regrettable that one sometimes has to represent an individual by raising his problems in the House?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful for that comment. It is difficult to raise a constituent's personal grievance on the Floor of the House. Occasionally that has to be done and that is right, but one must think carefully before doing it. One cannot do it lightly. I am sure that there will be some difference of opinion between my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and me on the merits of the case. I can speak only as I find. I am impressed by my constituent. He and his wife have come to see me on numerous occasions at my constituency surgery. I am impressed by that and because he is prepared to take his case to the highest possible place so that his grievances might be rectified. That indicates to me how strongly he feels and how committed he is to seeing his name cleared and getting his job back.
At no time before Mr. Green came to see me as his Member of Parliament had he been informed of any blot on his record, been given the chance to know what was held against him or been allowed to challenge it.
I had to find out the reasons for the apparent refusal of the Home Office to take him back. That in itself is slightly worrying. I am not sure of the procedure in such circumstances. I look forward to hearing my hon. and learned Friend's reply.
Mr. Green was not sacked. He was not forced out in the sense that he was told he was unsatisfactory and asked to go. I hope that hon. Members will accept that he had the best possible reasons for refusing to move to London or Maidstone—a sick mother-in-law, a sick father, a new wife and two young children. If those are not the best reasons for refusing a move, I do not know what are. He was put in the position where he had to resign because he would not go to the other end of the country.
I wonder if it is normal practice that someone put in this position should not be allowed to know the reasons for his not being re-employed when he was led to believe by the chief prison officer and colleagues that he was doing a good job. This was a man dedicated to the job he had taken up three or four years previously. He enjoyed the job. Allowing for the difficulties that arose with the dog and his new family—he had no trouble with the dog—I would be interested to know my hon. and learned Friend's views about the propriety of not allowing him to know why he was not readmitted to the service, particularly when the Home Office was prepared to tell me the reasons.
There is clearly some element of privilege attached to the records of individuals. I accept that there must be qualified privilege in some respects in relation to references for jobs. Surely, however, the Minister agrees that my constituent was at least led to believe, by the comments of his friends at Risley and the chief prison officer that he had done the job pretty well. The chief prison officer almost went so far as to say that he was sorry to see him go and that a reference would be given.
I believe that this is important. My constituent feels deeply that he has a justified grievance against the Home Office on the basis that he was not allowed to continue to do the job he wanted to do and that he was harshly treated over his domestic situation, especially as he was willing to pay the necessary expenses on two occasions to take the dog Major to the Isle of Wight. I cannot emphasise strongly enough how keenly I feel that commitment. The normal procedure is for payment to be made at public expense. On two occasions, my constituent made the offer out of his own pocket either to take the dog to the Isle of Wight or to make the move to any nearby prison. He never wanted to leave the service to which he remains dedicated.
Until he came to see me, my constituent had not been able to ascertain any reasons for his continued rejection. Following my intervention, the allegation of cruelty to his dog was serviced. My constituent wishes to make it crystal clear that these allegations are untrue and that he resents strongly the imputation on his character. I would suggest that for the reasons I have enunciated my constituent has a real case that must be answered by my hon. and learned Friend. My constituent wants his job back. If that is not possible, for reasons that will have to satisfy me, I would contend that natural justice, if nothing else, dictates at least that his integrity and good faith should remain unimpaired.

Mr. Gow: I regret that I was unable to hear the opening sentences of my hon. Friend's speech. Can he inform the House where Major now is?

Mr. Atkins: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the dog rather than to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major). I understand that the dog Major is at present in the Isle of Wight. When my constituent came off dog-handling at Risley, the dog was taken over by a newly trained dog handler at Albany prison in the Isle of Wight, where I understand the dog is now being looked after.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) missed my early remarks. With permission, I shall refresh the memory of the House. My constituent informs me, on the best authority, that when the dog left his care, a report was prepared which has perhaps gone to the establishment division of the Home Office. The report would indicate that the dog had been a difficult and perhaps hostile dog, that my constituent had been skilful in being able to maintain the dog in difficult circumstances but that, because of the difficulties, the dog should be put down. It is a credit to the new handler, an experienced animal handler, although not particularly experienced in prison dog handling, that he persuaded the prison service to allow him to take over the dog so that he could study the dog's difficulties, help it along and bring it back into the fold of dog handling.
My constituent has an extremely good case. I hope that I have been able to lay out that case to the best of my


ability as I see it. I strongly support my constituent in his plea. He would like his job back. With the pressures that exist on the prison service, a man of his trained ability should not be thrown overboard when he could be reemployed by the service. If, however, he cannot have his job back, the least that can be done in the interests of natural justice is that his name should be cleared of any imputation of cruelty to the dog. This is what particularly upset him. It should be removed completely from the record.
I hope that my remarks will be well received by the Minister and that he will be able to say that my constituent has a case. In that way, some of the wrongs that have been done to him can perhaps be righted.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I shall not detain the House for long. When I heard that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) intended to use this Adjournment debate on behalf of one of his constituents, I felt compelled to come and listen. I think this a worthy cause, although I know none of the details and nothing of Mr. Arthur Green. My many years as a magistrate have taught me to be cautious and not to prejudge an issue.
As hon. Members know, every story has two sides. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North is a sensible Member. Because he feels so deeply that there has been an injustice done in respect of his constituent, it is right that other hon. Members should not only hear his contribution—I congratulate him on his delivery—but give him some support if they feel that his case is strong and sensible.
I cannot claim to be an expert on dogs apart from the fact that I used to breed great danes and judge them in the show ring. I also ran an animal boarding establishment that catered for police dogs. As a magistrate, I have served as a prison visitor. I therefore feel qualified to make a modest and brief contribution. Everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North says has led me to believe——

Mr. Atkins: I do not wish my hon. Friend to mislead the House. I am grateful to him for the remarks that he has made but, much as I would wish it, I am not yet a right hon. Member.

Mr. Dickens: It shone crystal clear through the speech of my hon. Friend that there was a love between Mr. Arthur Green and his dog. In the early part of his speech, we heard that there was a difficulty with Mr. Green's second wife, to such an extent that the dog could not stay at home. She had a fear of dogs. One appreciates that, because many people are afraid of large animals. There is no blame attached. However, having heard my hon. Friend's speech, it is inconceivable that there was the alleged cruelty towards the dog Major by Mr. Green. Everything that I have heard this afternoon leads me to believe that there was a tremendous bond of love between the dog and the dog handler.
Notwithstanding that, we must be cautious. I shall be interested to hear the reply of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. I have not attended a debate since I have been a Member of Parliament where

an hon. Member has felt strongly enough to come into the Chamber and fight against what he believes to be an injustice to one of his constituents.
We heard in yesterday's debate about the deplorable state of Britain's prisons, with overcrowding and insanitary, vile conditions. I do not need to repeat anything that was said in that debate. We should ask the prison service to reconsider not only the reinstatement of Mr. Green to the service for which he was trained, but whether he should be given a sensible acknowledgement so that his name may be cleared. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North well. If he was not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was an element of injustice or some root cause behind the prison service's conduct—although he may have been misguided in some elements—he would not have made a plea on behalf of his constituent. I shall be interested to hear the reply of the Minister of State.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) for bringing to the Floor of the House the question of an individual, his employment and his right to redress if he has been dismissed abruptly. However, I do not wish to anticipate the Minister's reply. The situation is serious or my hon. Friend would not have brought it here. I have been stirred by the fact that he has. I feel that it is a great tribute to democracy in Britain.
I have an interest in prisons and prison officers. For many years I have been interested in prison education and in trying to achieve access to education for all those in custody. I have been told many times that we are dependent upon prison officers and what they can be asked to do. We must have a sufficient number of prison officers if prisoners are to be escorted to classes for the purpose of being educated, so the loss of one officer could weaken the position even more.
I have visited many prisons—training prisons, women's prisons, men's prisons——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the subject is the decision of the Home Secretary in respect of Mr. Green. We must stick to that and not get on to the general principles.

Mr. Greenway: I was not going to stray from the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the loss of one prison officer weakens the establishment of officers throughout the service and weakens the ability of the prison service to provide education for prisoners in all its establishments. One must concede that, and I draw the House's attention to the need to do something about the position.
I could not stand by and see any possible loss, whether Mr. Green has been dismissed or not. We do not know what the position will be until after the Minister has spoken, but the chance is that we may lose a prison officer and therefore further weaken the prison education service, which is in an unsatisfactory state. The effect of not having prison education on the scale required is to throw prisoners together to discuss the one thing that they have in common—crime. Prisons become universities of crime. The possible loss of such an individual furthers the situation.
I wish to hang my protest upon that. It furthers a situation in which many courses for prisoners and young people in prisons are more restricted. The House must be concerned about that. In this brief intervention, I ask the Minister to be concerned about the establishment and number of prison officers, and the effect of what my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North has said upon the prison education service and therefore upon the morale of prisoners——

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has now reached the general subject of morale in prisons, the shortage of prison officers and overcrowding in prisons and asks the Minister to reply to that. I submit, on a point of order, that that is not relevant to this Adjournment debate. I also submit that the speech of the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) was not relevant, in that he said he knew no details of the case and nothing of Mr. Green. It seems quite wrong that a limited constituency case—a personal grievance that has been raised by an hon. Member in the House—should be exploited in order to abuse the procedure of the House. In my view, it is an attempt to prevent a debate coming on about the plight of the unemployed.
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure that any further contribution to the debate deals specifically with the very limited point originally raised by the hon. Gentleman—the reappointment of Mr. A. G. Green as a prison officer.

Mr. Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it not the case that if the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) had been out of order, you would not have allowed him to make it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is concerned that every speech that is made shall be in order. All the speeches that have been made today have been in order, or I should have ruled them out of order. I have told the hon. Gentleman now making his speech that he cannot discuss the general principles of education in prisons. He must confine himself to the particular case.

Mr. Greenway: Of course, I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was interested to hear that intervention. I am in no sense seeking to extend the debate unnecessarily. I had a broadly similar case in my constituency. All hon. Members have prisoners in their constituencies who are affected by this type of case. I simply sought to point out that if the establishment at one prison is weakened by the loss of a single prison officer, that will have a broad effect on the whole service. That is the reason for my concern.

Mr. John Wheeler: I wish to intervene briefly because my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) has drawn to my attention the case of Mr. Green. My hon. Friend sought my advice because I am a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and have relevant experience of the prison service and what happens within it.
I do not wish to detain the House too long, but some points should be raised in connection with Mr. Green. I understand that he first served as a prison dog handler in

July 1978 and continued in that service until December 1979. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that before Mr. Green could serve as a dog handler he had to be carefully selected to see whether he had the right aptitude to undertake that duty and whether he was a suitable and fit person to have charge of an expensive animal—a specially acquired dog—for use in the type of duties that have to be undertaken in the prison service.
It may help the House to know that there are about 250 dogs in the prison service. They are expensive to acquire and train. Mr. Green would have undergone the training courses and the examination necessary to determine whether he could perform that duty and whether he would be able to serve in the different prison establishments. Therefore, I am concerned that if Mr. Green is removed from that duty in the prison service, the expense of training and preparing him for it will be a charge on the taxpayer and a denial of Mr. Green's career structure.
In today's modern prison service, the establishment division of the prison department attempts to create a sensible and realistic career structure for prison officers. A man like Mr. Green would have been invited to perform that duty and he might have expected to stay as a prison dog handler for at least the duration of the dog's life. If a trained dog handler is separated from his trained dog, the two essential elements that are expensive to obtain are lost. The dog does not easily adapt to a new handler, although that can be done with additional resources and expense. However, Mr. Green possessed the aptitude to perform that duty. Therefore, an explanation should be given to the House, which is the sovereign body in such matters, as to why his service had to be terminated and why he cannot resume his duties as a dog handler.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I realise that this is a complicated case and my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) has been extremely kind in taking an interest in it. As my hon. Friend said, I went to him because he is an expert in such matters and I am not. Perhaps I did not make myself absolutely clear. Although my constituent was a dog handler for 18 months or so, he had to come off dog handling because his wife disliked the dog. I understand from Mr. Green that he did not dislike being a dog handler—after all, he had been picked and trained to do that—but that there were special domestic pressures which provoked him to make his move. That is the cause of my concern. If Mr. Green were to be re-employed by the Home Office, he would be given normal disciplinary duties, in the training for which a great deal of money will have been invested.

Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
The background to the case is interesting, because dogs are generally quartered separately from prison officers, their families and homes. However, in this case, the prison officer will have been selected for duty because of his dedication and length of service. It is most unfortunate that the training and skills that Mr. Green acquired are no longer available to the prison service, particularly when there are staff shortages in the prison services and when overtime is being worked because of the limited number of people who wish to undertake such difficult duties. Given the training that Mr. Green will have enjoyed he should be capable of being re-employed.
Mr. Green would be a suitable candidate for employment in several prison service establishments. He


could probably be considered for an open prison or for a prison in his immediate home area. Indeed, there are several possible prisons, such as the remand prison at Preston. I am sure that the Minister will agree that there are some vacancies at prison officer grade, and Mr. Green may be eligible for such a position. Given the expenditure of taxpayers' money, Mr. Green's case should be carefully reviewed.
The Minister is always fair in such matters, and I hope that he will find it possible to review the case with the care and courtesy for which he is known to see whether Mr. Green can be found a place within the prison service.

Mr. Peter Viggers: There are probably not many sovereign legislatures in the world where individual cases receive as much attention as they do in this House. It is a great tribute to our system of legislation that we can raise important individual cases in this way. However, the debate raises slightly broader issues, with which I have had to cope over the past seven years when dealing with individual cases in my constituency.
Existing employment regulations often do not deal properly and capably with individual cases because the individual concerned feels aggrieved if his job application is not granted, and if an employment opportunity is no longer available. In the private sector the individual can move and find another position and so perhaps the damage is not as great as it might otherwise be. However, in the public sector things are quite different. That is why this case should be treated carefully and why those responsible for employment in the public sector should give special consideration to the employment of those within that sector, particularly in areas such as that which I represent, which is strongly associated with the Ministry of Defence and where there are few opportunities for employment outside that sphere.
Mr. Green's employer was the prison service. There are other employment opportunities within the prison service for individuals such as Mr. Green, and also employment opportunities in the area in which he previously worked.
I have represented my constituency for seven years. The Ministry of Defence provides the overwhelming majority of employment opportunities. Should an individual not gain the job that he seeks within the MOD, it is difficult for him to challenge the lack of employment opportunity and obtain satisfaction. The facts revealed by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) are relevant to the cases that I have handled.
One constituent told me that his application for employment by an MOD establishment had been refused, but the reasons for refusal had not been made available to him. The problems of security pose real problems for the individual——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot reply on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. We are dealing with the case of an individual employed by the prison service, and the Minister responsible is here to reply to that. The hon. Gentleman should stick to the subject.

Mr. Viggers: I am sorry if my remarks did not appear to be directly related to Mr. Green's case. Mr. Green could not obtain satisfaction other than through the House of Commons and the good offices of his Member of

Parliament, who has so willingly taken up his case. In the cases about which I have been consulted, it has not been possible for the individuals to gain satisfaction other than by taking up the matter through me. On occasions I have had to obtain a statement from the appropriate Minister showing why the individual had not been eligible for employment.
Can the Minister give any guidance on the matter? The Home Office, as well as the MOD, is involved in matters of security. It must be difficult to state the reasons for non-employment or a refusal to grant a certain job. Should there be some other way open, perhaps a tribunal, to individuals who cannot obtain satisfaction? It is peculiar that individuals need to go to their Members of Parliament and the relevant Ministers to obtain satisfaction.
I hope that our brief debate will enable the Minister to give some guidance on that point. That would be helpful to us when dealing with cases like that of Mr. Green.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) for raising this matter this afternoon, and for giving me the opportunity to explain the decision of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary not to reinstate Mr. Green, who is a former prison officer. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens), Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) and Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for their contributions to the debate.
It is an important function of this legislature that there should always be time for the individual cases of our constituents, where an injustice is perceived—rightly or wrongly—to be aired and debated. It should be an occasion upon which the responsible Minister is required to come before the House and explain what has been done on behalf of the Executive. The time that we have spent on the debate today has vindicated that important principle.
The facts are that Mr. Green joined the prison service in December 1975. After training he was posted to Maidstone prison. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North said that Mr. Green appeared to have settled there quite happily, and reports have shown that he settled into his duties reasonably well. In January 1978 he applied to become a dog-handler and, following an interview, was selected for training in those specialist duties. He completed the initial training course and was subsequently posted to Risley remand centre in August 1978 as a dog-handler. In September 1979 he applied to revert to discipline duties—that is, he wished to cease his work as a dog-handler and return to the important work carried out by discipline officers on the landings within the prison. At the same time he asked for a transfer to either Wymott or Preston prisons.
The grounds for his application were that he had an elderly father living alone in Preston, that his fiancée lived with her mother in the same area and that it was too far to travel daily from Preston to Risley. I have no reason to doubt what my hon. Friend said in amplification of those grounds—the family reasons that he outlined, including the fact that Mr. Green's wife had to help in the family business. I do not contest what my hon. Friend said about Mr. Green offering to pay the cost of removals. The application was not supported either by local management or by the staff welfare section.
I do not doubt that my hon. Friend was right to say that, subsequently, Mr. Green learnt that other prison officers had been appointed to Wymott and Preston, at public expense. The issue has nothing to do with whether the officer pays for his removal expenses or whether they are paid for at public expense. It is a long-standing practice in the prison service that if a person who is trained in specialist duties, such as a dog-handler, wishes to revert to ordinary duties, he is required to return to his former establishment or another establishment of the Department's choice. That is the practice. It is referred to in a notice to staff, serial number 54/1978, which is promulgated to all prison department establishments and is known to prison staff generally.
The relevant paragraph states:
It must first be emphasised that because of the cost of specialist training, all such training is provided on the strict understanding that an applicant accepts an obligation to serve in the specialist grade at whichever establishment he may he required. Because of the limited number of specialist posts availble it is not always possible to offer a successful candidate a choice of posting, but every endeavour will be made to take account of previously expressed wishes and circumstances. Reversion to discipline duties will not normally be allowed without good reason. An officer wishing to revert to discipline duties will be expected to await the appointment of a replacement and may have to accept a liability for transfer to another establishment of the Department's choice.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I have a copy of the document from which the Minister quoted. It says "allowed without good reason". Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the substantial reasons that I enunciated—family, new marriage, children's education, sickness of both father and mother-in-law, a recent death and the difficulties with the dog phobia of the new wife—are good reasons? Does he accept that my constituent never expected preferential treatment at any time? He was reasonably content to stay at Risley on ordinary discipline duties until a transfer could be effected. In those circumstances, while I recognise my hon. and learned Friend's reasons for emphasising the paragraph, I should have thought that there were reasons as good as could be found anywhere for being reasonable towards my constituent.

Mr. Mayhew: If a prison officer's wife does not like dogs and does not want her husband to have anything to do with dogs, I accept that that is a good reason for a prison officer not wishing to continue to handle dogs. However, that is not the point. As my hon. Friend has fairly said on many occasions, and has just repeated, Mr. Green did not want preferential treatment. I shall explain why it was not possible to allow him to transfer either to Wymott or Preston prisons.
One can understand the reasons for the rule that is promulgated in the notice to staff. It is expensive to train people for specialist duties and therefore those people are expected to carry out those duties. If for good reason—I do not quarrel with Mr. Green's reason—they want to give up those duties, the notice says that they must expect to have an obligation to serve at another establishment of the Department's choice in some other capacity, whether as a discipline officer or not.
At the time, there was a long list of officers already waiting for transfer to the Preston area. Some of the officers on the list were serving at Risley, where Mr. Green was. Accordingly, Mr. Green was told that, on reverting to discipline duties, he would have to return either to his former establishment, which was Maidstone,

or to a prison in the London area, because there were vacancies in the London area. He was given that option. Of course, he could have elected to remain at Risley as a dog-handler, has he wished to do so, and await his turn in the queue for a transfer to the Preston area.
The policy was not to give Mr. Green preferential treatment in the form of an immediate transfer to Wymott or Preston by allowing him to go to the head of the queue that already existed of officers who had registered applications for such a transfer. He was told that he could either wait at Risley as a dog-handler or go to Maidstone or to London. It is important to emphasise that, contrary to what was said in error by my hon. Friends the members for Ealing, North and Paddington, Mr. Green's employment was not terminated. He was not dismissed. He resigned in circumstances which I shall now describe.
Mr. Green gave notice on 17 December of his intention to resign, and he resigned from the service on 29 December 1979. As was pointed out to my hon. Friend in correspondence with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, between Mr. Green's application for transfer and the date of his resignation his attitude towards his duties deteriorated remarkably and culminated in his dog being taken away. Mr. Green had said that since his marriage he could not take the dog home because it did not suit his new family. He requested that it should be placed in the prison kennels, and that was done. However, instead of visiting the dog and maintaining regular contact with it until another dog-handler was found, he failed to attend to the dog as he should have done. On occasion, the intervals between his visits were in excess of two days, and his senior officer noted that the dog's performance began to deteriorate.
Mr. Green had been informed why the dog had been taken away from him, and he was given the reasons on or before 4 December 1979. Subsequently, arrangements were made for the dog to be transferred to a new handler on the Isle of Wight.
Three months after Mr. Green resigned, he requested reinstatement. I shall describe in a moment the steps that were taken following that request. However, as my hon. Friend referred to correspondence with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, I shall quote the relevant parts of the correspondence, particularly the letters from my noble Friend.
My noble Friend said in a letter dated 21 November:
In accordance with general Civil Service policy, it is not the practice to give specific reasons for rejecting a candidate but I can assure you that Mr. Green's application for reinstatement was carefully considered. I think, however, it may help if I explain briefly the circumstances leading to his resignation.
In 1978 Mr. Green successfully applied for appointment as a dog-handler and was transferred at public expense from Maidstone to Risley. A considerable amount of money is spent on the training of specialist officers and reversion to normal duties is not normally allowed without good reason. Officers also know that they will be expected to await the appointment of a replacement before reversion takes place. In view of the short time he had served at Risley and in fairness to a number of officers who were on the waiting list for transfer to that area many of whom had been waiting a long time, Mr. Green was told that if he wished to revert he would be required to transfer back to Maidstone at his own expense or, because of the shortage of officers in the London prisons, to the London area at public expense.
He chose to resign. I have looked into his case again because of your interest but I am afraid that I can find no grounds for changing the decision.
That letter referred to the fact that, following Mr. Green's application for reinstatement three months after he


had resigned, he was told that his application was unsuccessful. It is a Civil Service rule that is consistently applied in the prison service that a civil servant who resigns his appointment has no automatic right to be reemployed. Much turns on whether there are suitable vacancies and on how his previous service was viewed. However, the overriding requirement is that the applicant must always match up with current standards of recruitment. In Mr. Green's case the views of local management were sought. The governor and chief officer submitted reports, but as they were unfavourable, it was decided not to reinstate Mr. Green.
My hon. Friend has been most diligent, as I would expect, on his constituent's behalf, and has written numerous letters to my noble Friend. Following representations made by my hon. Friend on behalf of Mr. Green, and a meeting which took place with my noble Friend on 16 March, it was decided that Mr. Green should be given the opportunity to state his case before one of the prison officers' selection boards, which are the permanent prison officer recruiting panels. In his speech my hon. Friend did not refer to that board or to his constituent's appearance before it.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I may not have made it clear, but I referred to that. Both I and my constituent understood that he would be given the chance to explain some of the problems to which I referred in my speech. He said to me afterwards that it was a formal board and that he did not have a chance to go into the problems in detail.

Mr. Mayhew: If I missed the reference, I am sorry. I correct at once what I have just said. The meeting took place. However, one of the board's tasks is to ensure that officers or the candidates fit to be prison officers fit the current recruiting standards. The board consists of a governor, a chief prison officer and a higher executive officer. The board was constituted in that way on that occasion. I understand that none of its members was personally acquainted with Mr. Green.
Mr. Green was duly interviewed by such a board last April. I understand that he was given a full opportunity to present his case. I have seen the report submitted by the chairman of that board. My noble Friend referred to it in a letter that he wrote. Notwithstanding Mr. Green's previous training and service, the board concluded that Mr. Green was not up to the standard, judged against present criteria. It is a consistently applied rule not to give reasons why a candidate for appointment to a Civil Service post is not selected.
Although I cannot take up in any detail the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport about whether there should not be a tribunal before which a complaint of non-success in an application for a job can be aired and presumably adjudicated upon, there must be formidable objections to any such suggestion.

Mr. Viggers: Will my hon. and learned Friend expand briefly on the reasons why the applicant is not told the reasons for his non-selection for appointment?

Mr. Mayhew: I can think of one immediate rule that would be as applicable to an application for a job outside the Civil Service as to a job inside the Civil Service. That

is that many—I should have thought all—applicants are invited to submit references. The confidentiality of references is absolutely crucial to their value.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North that I have seen that report and considered it carefully. It appears from that that Mr. Green had a full and fair hearing and that his interview was different from a mere formal appearance.
At this stage I should refer to the remainder of the correspondence because my noble Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North again on 21 January 1981. He said:
The points made by Mr. Green have been noted, but I must say that his version of events differs from the information on our files. In particular, he states that he was unaware of the rules governing reversions to discipline duties, but these were only promulgated in April 1978, just prior to his attendance at the dog-handlers' training course and it is usual for such notices to be drawn to the attention of staff. I enclose a copy…I should also add that when Mr. Green applied to rejoin the prison service in February of last year, the usual inquiries were made of his former governor as to his suitability for re-employment. As a result it became apparent that although his reports had been generally satisfactory, his performance during the latter period had deteriorated to such an extent that there was considerable cause for concern. Indeed the deterioration had been such that his local management had been compelled to take Mr. Green's dog away from him because of his neglect of the animal. It is for this reason that Mr. Green has not been accepted back into the service and I am satisfied that no other decision was possible.
My noble Friend concluded:
I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.
Following that there was further correspondence. On 31 March my noble Friend wrote to my hon. Friend and said that he promised that he would write about Mr. Green's unsuccessful application to join the prison service. He said:
There is presently a moratorium on the recruitment of prison officers. However, I have given Mr. Green's case careful thought and I think it would be right to arrange for him to be interviewed by one of the prison officer selection boards, which will independently measure his suitability for re-employment against the high standards which are now required for entry into the service. This means that he will have the opportunity of a personal hearing. We will set in hand the necessary arrangements for this. If Mr. Green is declared successful, then as soon as recruitment starts again, a post will be found for him on the understanding that its location would be subject to the overall needs of the service, but this means that his posting would not necessarily be in the Preston area; his views in this respect would, however, be taken into account. I must make it clear that if Mr. Green is unsuccessful, then I will not interfere with the decision.
I believe that that is a fair offer—although an exceptional one—of a submission of that case to the board. My noble Friend wrote again on 13 August and said:
I have read the report submitted by the chairman of the selection board following Mr. Green's interview on 22 April and I am satisfied that he was given every opportunity to express his point of view. It is clear from the report that the circumstances surrounding his reversion to discipline duties and his subsequent resignation were among the subjects discussed. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explain that the Civil Service Commission has overall authority for the recruitment of civil servants and Departments recruit staff on delegated authority. In cases of reemployment of former civil servants, the commission insists that the candidate must be acceptable by current standards of recruitment. The commission insists on that. Contrary to any view which Mr. Green has formed either from talks with the chief officer or impressions gained from the selection board, the Department's view, with which I am bound to say that I agree, is that he simply does not measure up to the high standards which are currently required for entry into the service.
I thought it right, as my hon. Friend had referred to the correspondence, that the full correspondence from my


noble Friend the Under-Secretary who has the responsibility for administering the prison service should be placed before the House for the sake of completeness.
The prison service has reached its manpower ceiling for 1981–82. Recruitment, therefore, has been mainly confined to cover wastage. It follows that competition for prison officer posts is fierce. Only the best candidates are being allowed into the service. That should benefit the service in the longer term. In short, while Mr. Green was acceptable when he was first recruited in 1975, standards are higher in 1981 and it was found that he did not measure up to present standards.
It is an unhappy feature of that episode that some conflict about the facts is apparent. My hon. Friend has fairly and with the utmost diligence put Mr. Green's version of the facts before the House. I have put before the House the facts as they were reported to my noble Friend. I have also referred to the report of the independent board. I have also seen a document that refers to the fact that Mr. Green was told on or before 4 December the reason why his dog had been taken from him. The view was that the dog had been neglected.
I am able to say no more than that, but although there was this unhappy conflict about some of the facts, that conflict did not play an overriding part in these affairs. That may be seen from the fact that Mr. Green's application for reinstatement was submitted to a recruitment board established in the normal way, comprising a governor, a chief prison officer and a higher executive officer who were not acquainted with Mr. Green. The crucial question was whether he measured up to the high standards that are required today.

Mr. Dickens: There is a great inconsistency in my hon. and learned Friend's reply, particularly in the evidence of the unsuitability of Mr. Arthur Green. We have been told that he was suitable to go on a waiting list for another prison, and offered a transfer to Maidstone or London. The governor of the prison where he originally served was obviously of the opinion that he measured up to the requirements of the service, and I presume that the board that sat in judgment received reports from that governor.

Mr. Mayhew: It is perhaps unfortunate that for family reasons Mr. Green did not feel able to accept the offer of a post at Maidstone or London. I can only point to the fact that after three months, when he applied for reinstatement, arrangements were subsequently made in April this year for him to appear before the board. I have notified the House on the outcome of that application.
While I greatly admire the persistence with which my hon. Friend has put his constituent's case and argued it with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, I am afraid that I can see no grounds upon which the Home Secretary could be advised to reverse the decision that has been taken.

Orders of the Day — Unemployment and Social Security Benefits

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), it may be helpful to the House if I indicate that Mr. Speaker has accepted the hon. Gentleman's application to initiate a second Adjournment debate. The subject is the effect of the

Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals upon the recipients of unemployment and short-term social security benefits.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to raise the issue that you have just outlined. 1 apologise to the Minister for Social Security and the Under-Secretary of State for the fact that they have had to break other engagements to be here to answer the questions that I shall put. I am sorry that they were unable to persuade Treasury Ministers to be present to answer those questions.
It would have been much better had the Secretary of State for Social Services come to the House to comment on the effects of the Chancellor's statement on the groups with which we are concerned. That would have given hon. Members on both sides of the House the opportunity to ask questions and to clear up many of the issues that have been left extremely clouded.
From my reading of the morning newspapers, it appears that in several areas they have got the Chancellor's statement wrong. It is therefore important that this uncertainty should be cleared up at the earliest opportunity.
I start with a general comment about what the Chancellor said yesterday. His message was that we were turning the corner, that the problems were being resolved—albeit slowly—and that things would improve. Against that background, he said that the Government would reduce benefits to the worst-off in society by 2 per cent. It is amazing that he should say that. In other words, the sick, the unemployed and most of those on supplementary benefit will lose a week's money at the very time when we are turning the corner.
Let us recall what the Chancellor said when, according to him, things were most difficult. In his Budget Statement last year, he said:
Again, any civilised society should provide a safety net below which a poor person's standard of living should not fall. We can all debate what is the proper level. Should it be a relative level or, as Beveridge had contemplated, an absolute level, which seeks to meet the basic needs of a person and his family? These are difficult questions. The answers are not made any easier by the fact that the supplementary benefit scheme covers so many varied circumstances, with more than 3 million beneficiaries at any one time, ranging from the old and infirm to healthy young people capable of work. But clearly no action we take should be at the expense of the really weak and needy."—[Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 1458–9.]
That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said when he claimed that the problems were greatest. Are we no longer a civilised society, as he now feels that the weakest must bear the cuts?
What about the comments of the then Secretary of State for Social Services? When justifying cuts in other benefits, he made it absolutely clear:
The Government are determined to maintain the safety net for the poorest people and accordingly the scale rates of short-term supplementary benefit will be fully price protected".—[Official Report, 27 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 1659.]
What has changed? The Chancellor says that we are supposed to be turning the corner. Why have the Government chosen to hit the least well-off? That fundamental question must be answered.
I understand that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I therefore hope that the Minister will clearly state what has happened to these beneficiaries.


I think he will confirm that pensioners will lose 2 per cent. for a year—in other words, a week's benefit—but that it will be made good in 12 months' time from then on. I think he will also confirm that there will be no back pay for the missing 2 per cent.
Perhaps he will also confirm that unemployment benefit will be cut by 2 per cent. this year and that that will continue. The unemployed who are also on social security will also experience a 2 per cent. cut this year, which will continue.
What about unemployed people on short-time supplementary benefit, such as people with families? If a man has registered for work but his unemployment benefit has run out, he will never be able to get on the long-term rate. Benefit for that group will be cut for this and continuing years by 2 per cent. Yet again, they will lose a week's money for each year they continue to be on supplementary benefit.
The next group consists of people on short-term supplementary benefit, particularly one-parent families, who must wait for a year before getting on the long-term rate. Will the Minister confirm that for this and future years they will lose a week's benefit?
What about people other than pensioners on long-term supplementary benefit? I understand that that group will lose the 2 per cent. for this and future years. That group will also be penalised a week's income this year and in future years.
If that is correct, the statement that appeared inThe Guardian today about the 9 million people who, although subject to this year's cut will escape future cuts, is wrong. Will pensioners be the only group to be protected in the future, or will it also include people below pension age who are on the long-term supplementary benefit rate? That was the impression that people got from the Chancellor's statement but, as I understand it, that is not what is being done. The Government are now putting forward proposals for three rates of supplementary benefit—one for pensioners; another at a long-term rate for those people below pension rate, but a lower rate than the pension rate; and a short-term rate. In other words, for everyone but pensioners on supplementary benefit, there is a week's cut this year, which will be perpetuated.
There was no indication in the Chancellor's statement of what would happen to the 5 per cent. cut in unemployment and sickness benefits. We were told once that when those benefits came into taxation the cuts would possibly be restored. I know that that was not much of a promise but it should be spelt out whether the cuts will be restored.
We must then look at what has happened to those people who are unemployed. The first cut in their benefit came when the Government decided to reduce the earnings-related supplement from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. The second cut, which will come into effect in January next year, is the abolition of the earnings-related benefit. The unemployed are at least £11 a week worse off for the first 30 weeks of their unemployment.
The Government assumed that they would tax unemployment and sickness benefits and abate them by 5 per cent. They accepted that that was a crude measure and that it would be ideal to tax the benefits. They readily admitted that many of the people who had to depend for 12 months on unemployment, sickness or invalidity

benefits were close to the tax threshold anyway, so the 5 per cent. by which they were being penalised amounted to more than if they had been taxed. That was supposed to be a temporary measure but as yet we have had no indication whether the 5 per cent. will be restored.
In addition, this year the Government got the figures wrong. The uprating in November was at least 2 per cent. less than was necessary. We cannot blame anyone for making that sort of mistake. It is a crazy system that expects the Secretary of State for Social Services to predict the inflation rate six or seven months ahead. I was always taught firmly that if a person made a mistake he should try to put it right at the first opportunity. Not this Government. They got the inflation rate wrong to the extent of one week's benefit in 12 months for each of the groups of claimants. Instead of trying to put the mistake right straightaway, they said that they would not put it right for 12 months and then only for some groups and not for those in the greatest need.
We should be clear about what is at stake. Almost all beneficiaries are losing one week's benefit—in other words, the amount that is required in many cases to pay the new television licence fee, or to meet a fuel bill or the cost of a major household item. We are not talking about small amounts. For most of those people in need one week's benefit is a substantial amount.
The unemployed will go on losing because, as a result of the way in which this legislation has been worked out, they will lose this year and next year. The Chancellor says that the number of unemployed people will increase. Not only will the number increase, but the length of time that individuals are unemployed is steadily increasing. I assure the Minister that it is not pleasent being made unemployed in any circumstances. If a person is unemployed for a week or a fortnight and gets back into work, it is a disaster that he can get over, but if the unemployment goes on and on, it begins to bite.
Part of the cruelty of the present system is that it does not allow the unemployed to get from the short-term supplementary benefit rate to the long-term rate. Why do we have two rates? The idea is that the short-term rate is for a short period, and it accepts that when a person comes on to benefit he may have some reserves of clothing and household items and can defer replacing them for a certain length of time. It is eventually accepted that he will need extra income to start to replace some of those major items.
People who have been receiving supplementary benefits for 12 months qualify for the long-term rate, but not the unemployed, who are left to go on and on on the short-term rate—a rate that is designed never to give enough to replace capital items. Those people not only lost a week's income this time round but they will be left a week's income short for each succeeding year.
I wonder how often the Minister talks to people receiving benefits. I talk to many of my constituents and I receive many letters from them. I am conscious when I go into their houses that there are now many people living in abject poverty and finding it almost impossible to make ends meet. They have had a week's money taken away from them this year—by accident, but it has happened—and now they will lose that week's money this year and each succeeding year.
A lady to whom I spoke the other day at my advice bureau said that by the time she had met her bills—her mortgage and other commitments—she had nothing left to live on and nothing with which to buy the food. She had


a choice of either breaking a commitment that she had entered into before her husband had died or going short of food.
Another letter that I received yesterday stated:
It is impossible to make ends meet.
My constituent set out a careful budget showing that she was at least £5 a week short. Another constituent wrote to me saying:
I can see no way out. All I wanted to do was to give my children a good chance in life. With no job and no prospects of one, what can I do? The only hope for my family would be if I were run over by a bus.
That is from a person with young children who wanted to give them a good start in life, yet he can see no way out of the net of debts steadily closing in around him.
Fairly frequently I do the shopping for my family and I go round one of the supermarkets because it is the quickest way. It always hits me very hard that by the time I have filled up my trolley, I know that I have spent as much as many people have to live on for a whole week. I also see people who have a few tins huddled together in a corner of their trolley, who are struggling week after week just to keep body and soul together on the present benefits.
Another constituent wrote to me saying:
I am scared to go to the supermarket because I can afford so little.
That is fairly typical. She continued:
I have to buy at the corner shop. I live on tick. I know it is a dear way to do it but I cannot get off tick.
In other words, she has no reserves to get in front. The Chancellor should have realised that people such as those would be penalised as a result of his measures.
I know and accept that benefits have to be paid for, and I do not expect anything for nothing. However, the Government are not only telling people in work that they must pay for the benefits, but they are now telling people out of work and on social security that they will have to pay for the benefits. That is appalling. Are not people who earn average and above average salaries prepared to contribute a little extra in taxes or in national insurance to pay for decent levels of benefits for the poorest in our society? If most of those who have above average earnings saw the poverty that exists, they would part with extra money without too many complaints.
The Chancellor's statement left many questions unanswered. It seems odd to be making some predictions about what will happen to benefits in November 1982 without completing the picture. If we are talking about public expenditure, we should be discussing the whole of it or claiming that predictions cannot be made too far into the future.
What will happen to child benefit next year? It is a major item and the decision that is taken on it might make all the difference to most of the other measures that we are discussing. If the Government were to announce that they intended to double child benefit, I should stop complaining about many of the shortfalls for families with children. Sadly, we know that the Government will not double child benefit. However, I hope that there will be a significant increase. Child benefit is part of the equation and it matters very much to families living in poverty.
It is amazing that we can calculate the level of unemployment benefit from next November onwards for the second half of the year, but we cannot calculate child benefit over that period. Perhaps the Government want to

keep something nice for their spring Budget. I hope that they will offer a generous increase in child benefit in the spring. It is clear that it is needed.
The Chancellor's announcements included no statement on the family income supplement, which is a crucial benefit for those who are in work.
What is the level of uprating to be next November? The last six upratings have all been wrong. Sometimes they have been too low and sometimes they have been too high. They have not often been too high. The level of uprating that the Government predict for next November will be crucial. Having made a mistake and erred on the low side on this occasion, I hope that they will ensure that any errors in November will be on the plus side.
In Committee we are busily discussing the new housing measures. What level of rebates will be set for them, especially for those on social security?
The Chancellor failed to answer so many questions. I hope that the Minister for Social Security will make clear which groups will have the 2 per cent. put back on. Will it be pensioners on supplementary benefit or all those below pensionable age in receipt of supplementary benefit except those on short-term supplementary benefit?
I welcome the opportunity to raise these issues now. I hope that the Minister will find time to answer some of my questions. I am sure that many more hon. Members will want to raise the same issues and I trust that they will have an opportunity to do so before the Minister replies. Will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are entitled to discuss this subject until 7 o'clock, when it will be interrupted for Private Business? If that Private Business folds up before 10 o'clock, I understand that we can return to this debate. If the Private Business continues until 10 o'clock, I understand that it will be possible to continue from 10 o'clock to half past 10 on this subject if sufficient Members seek to catch your eye.

Mr. Keith Best: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you be kind enough to clarify what the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said at the end of his remarks? If the Private Business folds up before 10 o'clock, and this Adjournment debate continues until 10 o'clock, can the debate continue until half-past ten?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This debate can continue after the Private Business until 10 o'clock, when the Question, That this House do now adjourn will be disposed of. That having been done, the debate may then continue until half-past 10 on the same subject.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): Despite the havoc that this sudden Adjournment debate has played with my diary today, it is nevertheless a debate that I welcome. It gives me an early opportunity to put the record straight. Despite the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), the Government have already done much to implement what the Conservative Party promised to do in its election manifesto. The manifesto stated that a Conservative Government would do what they could to simplify the system and bring more effective help to those in greatest need. We shall continue on the course that we have set.
The main fabric of the social security system remains as it was in May 1979. We have made some changes, but, taken as a whole, it is probably more effective in bringing help to those who need it.
I shall give some examples. We have reformed the supplementary benefit system by chanelling more help to those in greatest need and by establishing clear statutory rights to benefit. More help is going to lone parents who do some work, to families with young chidren and to families that have gained from the halving of the qualifying period for the higher rate of benefit from two years to one year. More recently, we have extended the higher rate to all unemployed persons over 60 years of age who are within the qualifying period.
Secondly, we have legislated to make maternity grant non-contributory, thus helping young mothers and others without a contribution record. Thirdly, we have published proposals for improving the industrial injuries scheme by concentrating on the more severely disabled. Fourthly, we have removed the invalidity trap for young people on noncontributory invalidity benefit. Fifthly, we have put the Christmas bonus on a regular statutory basis. Sixthly, we have kept our pledge to maintain the value of the retirement pension and other similar benefits for widows and the disabled. About three-fifths of social security expenditure is on these benefits.
Lastly, a number of other benefits have risen faster than price increases since the Government took office. For example, the family income supplement, the mobility allowance and one-parent benefit have increased substantially more than the increase in prices. In his announcement yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained the forward movement of the social security programme without interruption. His statement did not introduce any changes in benefit provision and it preserves the process of uprating by price increases. Given that it is a predominant component in public expenditure, it might be that the Government should be congratulated on not impairing a vital social programme.
The Opposition will not be able to find much to criticise when they look elsewhere in our programme. We are continuing the previous provision for expansion of hospital and community health services. We are allowing them resources to enable them to expand at the previously planned rates. The pressure of current economic constraints is being met by a consistent strategy, as in social security, of increasing charges and contributions for those who can afford them and fully maintaining the exemptions for those who cannot. The constraints are not being met by a reduction in services.
The main burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument was shortfall. He seemed to base his main attack on that, for want of anything better. The Chancellor was explicit yesterday and the position is clear. There will be no abatement of benefits in the November 1982 uprating. The Chancellor will announce in the ordinary way the forecast of price inflation between November 1981 and November 1982 at the time of the spring Budget. He has said clearly that all benefits will then be uprated in line with that forecast.
There was some abatement of short-term benefits at the November 1980 uprating, and a fine fuss the Opposition made about it. I should have thought that they would

welcome a clear commitment by the Government that that would not happen again next year. No such luck. Instead, we had an exaggerated and disproportionate concentration on this year's shortfall.
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear, the movement of prices over the past year is likely to turn out as being about 2 per cent. higher than was forecast at the previous Budget. The final figure will not be known until later this month when we have the RPI figure for November. However, we can assume that there will be a gap of the order of 2 per cent., as the Government Actuary has been instructed to do, and as can be seen from his report that was published today. That means that the uprating that has just occurred will have fallen short of the movement in prices. The argument is whether the shortfall will be made good at the next uprating in November 1982.
The Government are pledged to maintain the value of the main long-term benefits, notably pensions, over the life of this Parliament. We accept, as the Chancellor made clear, that it means that the shortfall should be made good by adding back the 2 per cent. in November 1982 on top of the other increase that is guaranteed at that time. That applies to the benefits on which many people rely permanently for their income. Presumably there is no quarrel with the Government's proper concern to give those benefits special protection. For example, retired widows and war pensioners will have the value of their benefits fully maintained. No less than 60 per cent. of all benefit expenditure will be embraced in that guarantee. If there have to be priorities in these matters——

Mr. Chris Patten: Am I wrong in thinking that in the debates on the 1980 Budget we committed ourselves to protecting the value of short-term benefits? As I recall, we said that we were determined to continue protecting the value of short-term supplementary benefit at that time. Is that wrong?

Mr. Rossi: The Government's pledge and commitment was to the long-term benefit, as I have just described to the House. Therefore, if there must be priorities—in the present economic constraint, priorities are the name of the game—there is surely no dispute that these are the people who should have their benefits fully protected. I should like to know whether the Opposition would have done that differently.

Mr. Best: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, he said a moment ago that our pledge was to maintain the rate of long-term benefits. Does that assurance include long-term supplementary allowances as well as long-term supplementary pensions?

Mr. Rossi: Not the long-term rate. I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Just tell us what it does not apply to and then it will be clear.

Mr. Rossi: If the hon. Gentleman would like a list, I will give the House the benefits covered by the pledge: retirement pensions, both contributory and noncontributory; widows' pensions, including widowed mothers' allowance and widows' allowance; industrial death benefit, paid as a widow's or widower's pension; war disablement pension and war widows' pension; industrial disablement pensions; attendance allowance;


invalid care allowance; invalidity benefits; non-contributory invalidity benefit; unemployability supplement and supplementary pension. Those are the benefits that are covered by the Government's pledges.

Mr. Bennett: rose——

Mr. Rossi: I must finish what I have to say and give other hon. Members an opportunity to raise matters. The hon. Gentleman has already had his chance.
The Chancellor has also had to make it clear that there are benefits that are not covered by the Government's pledge and that will not have the shortfall made good. Those concerned receive a minority of the total social security expenditure—about 40 per cent. Many of them are in and out of benefit in a short period and the loss for them is not significant. In many cases it is merely a matter of one or two weeks. Restoring the value in November 1982 would not mean anything for the many who had gone on and off the books before then.
A decision of that kind is not palatable and I shall not pretend that it is. However, against the whole of our record of maintaining benefits through a period of economic difficulty unparalleled since the war, it ill-behoves the Opposition to pretend that this is a major inroad. Social security expenditure is approaching £30,000 million a year. It will increase by £2,500 million in 1982–83 as a result of the decisions announced yesterday. The amount missing as a result of the shortfall in a minority of benefits will be £65 million in 1982–83, as against the £2,500 million that is being added on.
It is pointless to speculate or to make detailed calculations about the effects of the shortfall in individual instances. We have not had the final RPI figures and we do not know what the forecast of price inflation will he at the time of the Budget. Final decisions about the rates of the benefits affected will not occur until then.
Not all benefit increases are calculated to match the rate of inflation to the precise penny—there has to be rounding off. Mobility allowance and FIS, for example, have been increased by Government well ahead of the rate of inflation already. If hon. Members are interested in figures, I can give them. The retail price index has increased since the Conservative Administration took office in May 1979 by 42·2 per cent. Against that, we have increased the family income supplement and, taking as an example a married couple with two children, it has risen by 73·91 per cent. We have increased the one-parent family benefit by 65 per cent. and the mobility allowance by 65 per cent. Those benefits are well ahead of the rate of inflation, and if they have to meet the 2 per cent. shortfall they will still remain well ahead of inflation.
For supplementary beneficiaries, the rate of benefit depends on family size and the ages of children. Even with shortfall, many families with young children will still be keeping ahead of the rate of inflation, because of the changes we have made in the children's supplementary benefit rates. Child benefit, which has been mentioned, is usually fixed at a rounded figure, but how it can be worked out cannot be determined until the final decisions and judgments are made by the Chancellor at Budget time. Until then, all argument about the precise effects on particular people can only be speculation.

Mr. Frank Haynes: The Minister referred to increasing mobility allowance, and I must accept that. It has happened. But will he tell the House how many

people who were receiving mobility allowance in May 1979, when the present Government took office, have since been disqualified?

Mr. Rossi: People are disqualified from receiving mobility allowance only if the medical conditions that originally entitled them to it no longer prevail—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Most certainly. Last November that allowance was increased to £16·50 a week. When the Government took office it was £10 per week. That is a substantial increase by any yardstick. When the mobility allowance was first introduced, an application rate of about 1,200 a month was expected. Applications are now running at about double that figure, and the take-up is enormous. That is a measure of the Government's success in helping people in that area of disability.
The Opposition let their speculation and imaginations run not, but I ask them what they would have done—no doubt the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) will tell us in due course—faced with the difficult choices that the Government have had to take. We consider that our decisions have been balanced and responsible, and that the main fabric of the benefit system is untouched. The Opposition's record is not beyond reproach when they have found themselves in difficulties. What about the Christmas bonus that the Opposition withdrew in 1975 and 1976? We have maintained it every year we have been in office and, moreover, enshrined it in statute so that it is now permanent.

Mr. Brynmor John: Talking of enshrining things in statute, if there are to be three classes of beneficiaries as a result of the Chancellor's measures—the long-term allowance recipients, the long-term supplementary benefit pensioners and the short-term benefit pensioners—will the Minister confirm that that will have to be dealt with by legislation?

Mr. Rossi: There will be three rates, but I doubt whether it will be necessary to deal with them by legislation.
I was asking the Opposition what they would do, faced with similar circumstances.

Mr. John: We would not be facing them. We do not have the most incompetent Chancellor of the century.

Mr. Rossi: What about the biggest social security swindle of all time—the missing £500 million in the 1976 uprating, when the Labour Government altered the rules to reduce the uprating by that amount? They deliberately created shortfall.

Mr. Reg Race: One swindle deserves another.

Mr. Rossi: If we were to emulate that shining example of fairness, that £500 million in 1976 would today require us to deny those people £925 million—nearly £1 billion. Today we are talking about £65 million in the context of a £2,500 million increase. How can Opposition Members come to this House and shed crocodile tears? Where choices have to be made, the choice must be clear. Maintaining long-term support for pensioners and others is our overriding priority. Bearing in mind the difficulties that many of those in work are having to face, and the contributions and taxes of those upon whom this entire edifice depends, the level of benefit that we are maintaining, even where shortfall is not made good, and backing with the promise of a full uprating without


abatement next year, what we are doing is not ungenerous in comparison with what has been happening previously under a Labour Government.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I hope that Opposition Members will join me in thanking my hon. Friend for coming to the House at such short notice and answering this debate. We are very grateful to him. He has said that child benefit is not something on which he can commit himself fully now. However, has he taken on board the importance of ensuring—particularly where poor families are concerned—that the uprating in child benefit, when the time comes, is to the full amount and that no shortfall will be kept there?

Mr. Rossi: I am aware of the anxiety of many of my hon. Friends on this matter. I shall make sure that the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is drawn to the remarks made on this matter during the debate, although it is not for me to prejudge the judgment that will have to be made by my right hon. and learned Friend at the time of his Budget, as my hon. Friends will understand.
So far from dismantling the social security scheme, as we sometimes hear Opposition Members accusing us of doing, it is one of the present Government's achievements that we have managed to interfere very little with the basic structure of the benefit. On any reasonable view, we have kept the essential structure of benefit intact. This has been and remains a firm and consistent plank in the Government's strategy. That same consistency necessarily demands that, as contributory benefits rise or as claims on them increase, so national insurance contributions must also rise. It makes no sense whatever to proclaim a belief in the contributory principle and in the same breath to complain about higher contributions.
A key feature of the national insurance scheme is that it is funded on a pay-as-you-go basis, so today's benefits are paid for overwhelmingly by the contributions of the people who have work and who are paying to get benefit rights themselves and by their employers. Of course, this means periodic rises in contributions. Anything else would be a dismantling of the national insurance scheme.
The contribution increases that my right hon. and learned Friend announced yesterday are in themselves wholly consistent with our strategy. We have held the employers' contributions steady. We have shifted the main burden resulting from higher benefit claims away from the general taxpayer and on to the contributor, and we have even managed to give a modest stimulus to small businesses by holding down the increase in the class 2 contributions for self-employed people.
Therefore, I make no apologies for what the Government have done or for what the Chancellor announced yesterday. Given the present economic situation, the Government have more than honoured their pledge and have struggled hard to maintain the benefits of those in greatest need. I have given to the House the list of the people who will not be affected by the shortfall that I have just mentioned, and in the other cases I have shown how already, in most cases, the benefits people receive have outstripped the rate of inflation since we came to office. We have done that despite Britain's present difficulties.
However, it must remain our determination to restore the economy of Britain, first and foremost. All levels of public expenditure, all demands upon business and the taxpayer, must ensure that we restore British industry's competitive position, because until we do that we shall not earn the money that we want to pay to people in our society who need help.

Mr. Reg Race: I am not surprised by the tone of the Minister's speech, but I find it particularly disturbing. He did not say that his are the first Government for half a century to cut and abolish social security benefits. Their record on these matters is outrageous and deplorable. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we shall pull our punches tonight and not criticise him because of his speech, he has another think coming. I shall remind him of all his Government"s actions.
The Government are the only Government for 50 years to stretch the year to 54 weeks for pensioners—they have changed the timetable of the seasons. The Cabinet in its generosity has abolished, for example, the earnings-related supplement to many benefits, including unemployment and maternity benefit.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Race: No, I shall not.
The only benefit that the Government have given to the people has been to make them unemployed and then to cut the benefits on which the unemployed depend.
Last year the Government introduced social security legislation which abolished the right to go to social security offices and obtain exceptional needs payments. As a consequence, when people go to local social security offices to claim those payments they are given a leaflet that tells them that they may not be entitled to the money and that they had better reconsider their claim. Those are the rights to which the Minister referred.
The other magnificent benefit that the Minister has given the poor is a 5 per cent. cut in unemployment and invalidity benefits and in a whole host of other benefits which have so magnanimously been given to the poor. At the same time as giving wonderful tax concessions to the rich the Government have been cutting the living standards of the poor. The Labour Party will throw that fact back in their faces every time that the Government come to the Chamber and say how marvellous they are in providing social benefits.
We are faced not only with the cuts, the abolition of benefits and the extension of the year, but with yesterday's failure by the Government to come clean about what they are doing. They pretend that somehow those people will next year be uprated and recover the 2 per cent. The papers in the Vote Office show that that is not what the Government intend. There will be a 40 per cent. cut—I assume that is in the value of the social security benefits, and not in the number of people claiming social benefits. Millions of people may have their benefits cut by 2 per cent. in real terms because the Government will not restore the shortfall this year. Why on earth did not Ministers have the decency to be honest and say that at the Dispatch Box yesterday? They were not prepared to say that because they knew that it would bring contempt and odium from the public—and rightly.
If the Government's record is deplorable, their reputation next October and November will be equally so.


The miserable Government pittances of millions of people who are dependent entirely on short-term social security benefits will be cut. One of the reasons why the Government say that they must cut social security benefits is that they cost so much. Let us examine why.
The Government Actuary's report contains the only Forecast of unemployment that the Government are prepared to make. Treasury Ministers and the Prime Minister will not tell us what unemployment will be in the next 12 months. We think that we know, but the Government Actuary, who is instructed politically, knows the trend. Page 2 of the report shows that the average level of totally unemployed people, excluding school leavers, in 1982–83 will be 2,900,000. In additiion, 225,000 school leavers and adult students will be unemployed. That calculation is made on political assumptions that the Government are forcing the Government Actuary to make to calculate national insurance contributions.
Bleating about the size of the social security budget is nonsense. The Government have increased unemployment. They have driven millions of people onto the dole. We shall not let them get away from that.

Mr. Garet-Jones: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has introduced the bitter tone that we have come to expect of him in such debates. Can he answer two questions, since he is so concerned with morality? First, what was his reaction to the unprecedented cut in social services by the Labour Party in 1976? Secondly, what qualifications would he make to his attitude in 1979 during the Health Service strike when he stood outside hospitals refusing to allow doctors to enter?

Mr. Race: My attitude to the actions of the last Labour Government is well known to the hon. Gentleman. That is why he asks the question. I thought that the cuts in public expenditure by the last Labour Goverment were disgraceful. I am consistent. That is why I am attacking the Government for doing the same and for actions that are far worse.
The Government have not only cut social security benefits—they have made a £700 million cut in housing subsidies this year. In my constituency, thousands of people are living in extremely miserable conditions because three quarters of the public expenditure cuts fall on housing.
National insurance and supplementary benefits are now too low for people to live on. One of the problems is that people receiving benefits have to do the rounds. They have to go to the local social security office to claim supplementary benefit if they are not entitled to any form of national insurance benefit. They have to obtain dribs and drabs from wherever they can, including charity, to make up their weekly income.
The character of the Government's attack on pensioners and people receiving short-term supplementary benefits can be judged not only by their failure to increase the benefits by the 2 per cent. shortfall this November, but by the facts that they have ignored the rise in prices which pensioners have to pay.
The Minister was wrong to use the retail price index to calculate those increases. The Government have their own special indexes—the one and two persons pensioner household price indexes. The increase in prices for pensioners has been much more substantial than the increase in the retail price index. The real standard of

living of pensioners, notwithstanding the restoration of the shortfall for pensioners next November, will be further eroded. The reality of their spending power and the price rises that they have to meet is not reflected in the retail price index.
I ask the Minister one specific question. How much money will the Government save by not replacing the shortfall in the long-term benefits now rather than later? It is well known—I do not say this in any spirit of rancour—that there are people receiving benefits now who will not be claiming benefit in November 1982 either because they are not eligible or because they have died. I want to know from the Minister how much the Government will save by failing to uprate the benefits now.
Another question that has to be raised with the Government is future legislation. It is known that there will be a Bill that seeks to represent the increased national insurance contributions. The question that arises is whether hon. Members will see any legislation that gives effect to the three rates of supplementary benefit. It is the opinion not only of Opposition Members but of the people we have consulted since yesterday that legislation would need to be laid before the House to give effect to those three rates of benefit. Hon. Members want to know whether there will now be a Social Security (No. 3) Bill. We wish to develop our arguments on those matters as quickly as possible and to alert people to the damage that the Government are wreaking on social security beneficiaries over the next few months.

Mr. Best: I want to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to be completely fair, as I know he would wish. The hon. Gentleman deprecated what the previous Labour Administration had done. I share that deprecation. Will he accept that the shortfall in 1976, if translated into current prices, would be £925 million compared with the shortfall of £65 million over a total increase of £2,500 million that we are now talking about? Is he not aware that prior to the 1981 uprating, the only three previous occasions since 1948 when a pension uprating did not fully compensate for price increases were under Labour Administrations in 1951, in 1969 and April 1975? I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman deprecates the actions of the previous Labour Administration. Where does his loyalty to the Labour Party lie? Does he deprecate the actions of all previous Labour Administrations?

Mr. Race: The hon. Gentleman has no doubt been given those figures. My reaction to any cuts in social security benefits in real terms, under whatever Government, is to deprecate those cuts. The hon. Gentleman cannot come to the House like the Minister and say that one wrong is as good as another. If he deprecates what Labour Governments have done in the past he must also deprecate what his Minister is now doing. I should like to know in which Lobby the hon. Gentleman will be voting when the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill comes out of Committee, and also in which Lobby he will be voting when a Social Security (No. 2) Bill comes on to the Floor of the House for Second Reading. If the hon. Gentleman feels that people should be protected against the ravages of inflation, he will presumably agree that his Government have broken their pledges on the matter. I recall the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), at the


Government Dispatch Box and again in Committee, boasting time after time that the Government had price protected supplementary benefits. We are now seeing the breaking of that pledge. I want to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to say whether he agrees with the breaking of that pledge and with the abandonment of Government policy. The people we are discussing are the poorest in Society——

Mr. David Ennals: There seems to be some strange agreement across the Floor of the House concerning the record of previous Labour Governments. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) went back as far as 1951 in dredging up history. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend whether they agree that there was an increase in real terms of 20 per cent. for the elderly under the previous Labour Government. At no stage were cuts in social security benefit introduced, as has happened under this Government. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree and will not join in accusations made against the Labour Government.

Mr. Race: I shall not be diverted by anyone on this matter. I deprecate cuts in public spending no matter by whom they are introduced. I deplore all shortfalls in benefit that are not made up. That is why I criticise the Government tonight. Opposition Members have been right to ask the Minister to come to the House to justify himself in the face of what is a terrible attack on the living standards of ordinary people. Opposition Members will continue to attack the Government for what they have done and to explain that they can get out of the hole they have dug for themselves by making the only cut that we favour— to cut the dole queues. We favour getting people back to work so that they can pay their tax and national insurance contributions to the Exchequer and bring about a cut in the social security budget. If the Minister wanted to suggest to his Cabinet colleagues a positive step towards cutting the social security budget he could start by advocating reflationary policies to get people off the books of the social security offices and out of the dole queues.
That is a relevant policy. We wish to see further cuts in public expenditure in defence and other areas in order to make way for better social provision for our people. The cuts in social security benefits introduced by Conservative Governments alone in the last 50 years—the Conservatives have been the only party in Government that has abolished benefits—must be criticised. We are here in the House tonight to pin that label on the Government.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) had been only a selected candidate in his constituency, he would have been disowned by his party and his leader this afternoon during Prime Minister's questions but no doubt he is an endorsed candidate——

Mr. Garel-Jones: No, he is not.

Mr. Bottomley: In that case, he may face trouble.
The issue we are discussing is important and merits more than the speech made by the hon. Member for Wood Green, which sounded like rabble-rousing outside a hospital gate. The contribution of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) was the sort of speech that could have been made by a Conservative Member or a member of any other party. He is concerned about the millions of people affected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday, some of whom are getting full protection and some of whom are not.
It may be some time before I can develop my theme on that, but I wish to put one point to the hon. Member for Wood Green. What level of pay settlements does he wish to operate during the forthcoming year? If it is 4 per cent. rather than 10 per cent., that in effect raises the standard of living of people on short-term benefits by 3 per cent. for the year—which is nothing to laugh at, as the hon. Gentleman is doing—but a serious point. If inflation runs at 20 per cent. during the year it means a reduction of about 10 per cent.——

It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS,under
Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — Humberside Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Clause 2

INTERPRETATION

7 pm

Amendments made: In page 3, line 41, after "than" insert "British Telecommunications and".

In line 42, after "to" insert
British Telecommunications has the same meaning as in paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 3 to the British Telecommunication Act 1981 and in relation to".

In page 4, line 7, after "means" insert "British Telecommunications".—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]

Clause 7

SUBSIDIARY WORKS IN RIVERS AND ELSEWHERE

Amendments made: In page 6, lines 39 and 40, leave out "the Post Office" and insert "British Telecommunications".

In line 44, leave out "the Post Office" and insert "British Telecommunications".

In page 7, line 1, leave out "the Post Office" and insert "British Telecommunications".

In line 5, leave out "the Post Office" and insert "British Telecommunications".—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]

Clause 8

No MAINS OR PIPES TO BE LAID IN BRIDGES WITHOUT CONSENT

Amendment made: In line 18, leave out "the Post Office" and insert "British Telecommunications".—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]

Clause 9

BYELAWS AS TO OPENING BRIDGES

Amendments made: In page 8, line 38, after "is" insert "for the time being".

In line 44, after "is" insert "for the time being".—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]

Clause 10

PROVISIONS RELATING TO BOOTHFERRY BRIDGE

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I beg to move, on page 9, line 1, leave out clause 10.
Clause 10 was added to the Bill only last June in Committee, before the Committee on Unopposed Bills, so tonight is the first opportunity for the House to discuss the provisions of that clause.
The clause relates to Boothferry bridge which carries the A614 trunk road over the River Ouse about two miles north-west of Goole. It is a matter of some surprise that neither I nor the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), whose constituency adjoins mine at the bridge, received notification of the new clause when it was introduced.
The effect of clause 10 is to re-enact two provisions of the Boothferry Bridge Act 1925, which is otherwise listed

in schedule 8 as one of the Acts to be repealed in total by the Bill. In any case, the Act will lapse at the end of 1984 as an Act promoted by a county council that went out of existence in 1974.
The repeal of the Boothferry Bridge Act 1925 was provided for in this Bill when it was first introduced in another place and when it was given a Second Reading in this House, so presumably it was not thought necessary then that any part of it should be preserved, as is now provided for in the "Johnny-come-lately" clause 10. Just as there was no need for the clause last May, nothing has happened since then to make it necessary now.
The provision in the clause to which I most object on behalf of my constituents is subsection (2), which seeks to re-enact the absolute preference and priority enjoyed by vessels navigating the river Ouse over all road traffic wishing to use the bridge. In other words, if this provision remains in the Bill, the position in accordance with the Boothferry Bridge Act 1925 would be maintained after 1984. In that case, any river vessel approaching the bridge without sufficient head room to go underneath it at once causes the bridge to he swung in its favour while all road traffic must queue at the traffic lights on either side of the river. That situation, which has existed since the bridge was opened about 50 years ago, has caused great inconvenience and frustration to road users throughout the years. Many of my constituents, as well as residents across the river, have wasted much time queueing at the bridge.
It is known at times for delays at the bridge to last for more than one hour, especially when several vessels pass under the bridge in quick succession. During the years when the bridge was the road crossing over the Ouse-Humber estuary nearest to the sea, the effect on traffic congestion of delays caused by the bridge being closed to road traffic could be chaotic. It is a matter of great concern that in this modern age, with the immense dependence upon the internal combustion engine, there are times when literally hundreds of vehicles can be held up at Boothferry bridge for the sake of a small boat.
Of course, there is now an alternative crossing of the Ouse not far from Boothferry in the shape of the M62 Ouse bridge, which was opened to traffic in 1976. That bridge was constructed with sufficient height to give clearance to all river vessels, whatever the state of the tide. Consequently, whenever Boothferry bridge is closed to road traffic, there is normally an alternative means of crossing the river over the motorway bridge. That diversion, however, adds about three miles to most local journeys. It is clear that Boothferry bridge continues to provide the shortest route linking the towns of Howden and Goole, the affinity between which has been strengthened since they were both included in the same local government area of Boothferry borough in 1974.
Many residents of my constituency who wish to cross the river use Boothferry bridge daily in order to work in the Howden area. I am sure that the hon. Member for Howden can confirm that there are many more Howden residents who work in Goole and who are associated with many aspects of community life centred on Goole.
For all those local residents, the bridge is part of the local means of getting about. The possibility of half an hour's delay at Boothferry bridge when they have allowed only 10 minutes travelling time to get to Goole is a real annoyance. The is no way of knowing in advance when the bridge will be closed to traffic. Sometimes when the bridge is swung against road traffic and one is waiting in


the queue it is difficult to know how long the delay will last or to judge whether it would be quicker to use the longer, alternative, route via the motorway.
In any case, there are times when the motorway bridge is not used because of high winds or road accidents. For instance, on 4 May 1979, the morning on which the counting of votes in the previous general election was taking place in most constituencies in the area, black ice on the motorway bridge caused accidents which led to the closure of the motorway. The resulting traffic queuing for Boothferry bridge produced intense congestion for most of the morning over a wide area. Even some counting of votes was delayed.
All told, the Boothferry bridge remains an important road link in Humberside. When the bridge has been de-trunked, as is expected in the near future, it will become the responsibility of the local highway authority—Humberside county council—which is the promoter of this Bill. It is curious that it is in the interests of the promoter as the highway authority that no statutory impediment should be imposed on the operation of the bridge, shortly to become its bridge, as is now proposed in this clause.
The clause has been introduced in the interests of river users—the owners and operators of boats proceeding to and from the Ouse above Boothferry. Those river users are not numerous. They are much less numerous than the number of motorists who wish to use the bridge. There should not be the power that clause 10 would bestow to impose delays on hundreds of road users.
The river users on the upper Ouse could do much to put their house in order, especially by improving their standards of navigation. Shortly before Christmas 1973, a ship collided with the railway bridge at Goole and demolished one of the central spans of the bridge, which was as a consequence out of action for nine months. That caused great inconvenience to railway passengers because Goole was at the end of a branch line. It also proved expensive for British Rail. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) vividly recalls the great inconvenience which railway passengers experienced when the bridge was out of action.
While no general difficulty arises from the navigation on the upper Ouse of vessels that are properly supervised by experienced pilots, there is still a real need for a statutory pilotage area for that stretch of river to avoid any repetition of the mishaps that have occurred in the past. The Department of Trade would do well to concentrate its attention on speeding up the making of a pilotage order for the upper Ouse, rather than seeking to perpetuate statutory hindrances—as it is doing in clause 10—for road users in my constituency.
It may be legitimately asked what would be the position of river users if the clause 10 were not enacted. Clearly, after the end of 1984 there would no longer be absolute statutory preference for river users over road users at Boothferry bridge. That does not mean, however, that there could not be some scheme, perhaps included in byelaws drawn up by the county council—which would by then be responsible for the bridge—to regulate the times at which the bridge could be swung open for river traffic. Such a scheme would have to be drawn up by the local highway authority, in consultation with representatives of river users. I hope that such a scheme would provide that

Boothferry bridge should remain open to road users at the busiest times of the day—that is, between 8 am and 9.30 am and from 4 pm and 6 pm. During those periods the swinging of the bridge against road traffic causes the most inconvenience and congestion. In drawing up such a scheme, I suggest that Humberside county council, as the local highway authority, would be acting truly in the interests of the highway users whom it represents. It is the council's job to try to make things easier for everybody seeking to use the highways within Humberside.
In 1925, when these provisions were first enacted in the Boothferry Bridge Act, the volume of road traffic throughout the country, and especially in and around Boothferry and the East Riding, was tiny compared with the present day. It made more sense then for river traffic to have absolute priority at the new swing bridge being constructed at Boothferry, but we all know that the position is different today. The House is being asked, in clause 10, to perpetuate what is really an archaic statutory provision that is completely out of tune with modern society.
As clause 10 is drafted, there will be no penalty for its infringement. If the bridgemaster does not swing the bridge at the behest of an approaching vessel, no penalty will be imposed upon him through the provisions of the Bill. We are being asked to pass a provision that cannot be strictly enforced.
For all those reasons, I, on behalf of my constituents, ask the House to support the amendment. I am weighing my words carefully. If the clause is deleted, I shall have no remaining objection to the Bill.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. lain Sproat): It might be for the convenience of the House if I respond immediately to the speech of the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall).
Clause 10 of the Bill simply re-enacts part of section 34 of the Boothferry Bridge Act 1925. As the hon. Gentleman implied that Act is being repealed under part I of schedule 8 to the Humberside Bill. I consider it extremely important to retain clause 10. It will ensure two things—first, that a navigable width of 38·1 metres—125 feet—continues to be available to vessels passing under the bridge when it is being repaired or altered, and, secondly, that vessels will continue to have priority over road traffic wishing to cross over the bridge.
The Government do not consider that clause 9 alone offers sufficient help in this matter because we do not feel that its provisions go far enough to ensure the continuation of the arrangements. They would allow the Humberside county council to make a byelaw in respect of Boothferry bridge, but only when it has taken over responsibility for it from the Department of Transport. I understand that that may take place next year. Most important, the byelaw-making powers contained in clause 9 would cover only the matter of priority for vessels over road traffic—which exercises the hon. Gentleman's mind. They would not extend to the equally important question of retaining a minimum navigable span when the bridge is under repair or being altered. Therefore, to lose clause 10 and to rely on clause 9 would mean losing altogether the navigable width provision. That would also result in the lapse of the priority provision until such time as the council was in a position to restore it by making a byelaw.
The hon. Gentleman has frequently drawn attention over the years to the difficulties experienced by vessels in navigating that stretch of the river Ouse. Navigation is difficult because of the many bends, the silting in the river and the distorted tidal sequence which limits the time available for vessels to make the passage. I believe that we should not add to their problems by deleting the clause. It is extremely important that vessels are not further impeded by having the opening span of the Boothferry bridge closed against them in favour of motor traffic. We must remember that vessels could not safely anchor in midstream because they would tend to swing into the shallows off the main channel, and there are no berths above or below the bridge where they could await its opening.
Obviously, some motor traffic will continue to be inconvenienced by the priority given to river traffic. But the opening of the M62, which bridges the Ouse half a mile downstream, should have given some relief to all but local traffic. I note that junction 37 lies about one mile north of the river and junction 36 two miles to the south.
In 1980 some 460 sea-going vessels passed under Boothferry bridge on their way to Selby, and, of course, made the return journey. That means that the bridge would have been opened, on average, only two or three times each day. I hope that hon. Members will agree that that does not suggest any serious inconvenience to the motorists using it. Equally, I hope that they share my view that it would be wrong to add to the difficulties of vessels on the Ouse by failing to continue the long-standing practice of giving them priority at Boothferry bridge.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: If the difficulties of navigation on that stretch of the Ouse are so great, what is the Minister doing to obtain a pilotage order to cover that stretch of the river?

Mr. Sproat: That is a very good question. I shall deal with it in pitiless detail if the hon. Gentleman will give me the opportunity. I sympathise with him. The pilotage question has been around for far too long and it is certainly in the interests of everybody—the Department entirely shares this view—to get this matter settled as speedily as possible.
The hon. Gentleman has implied that he would remain opposed to the provisions of clause 10 until satisfactory pilotage arrangements were made to secure better navigation on the upper Ouse.
At present, pilotage is not compulsory above a line 100 yards downstream of the Skelton railway bridge near Goole. As the hon. Gentleman will know, this line is the upper limit of the Humber pilotage district. However, there are voluntary arrangements for the taking of a licensed pilot for sea-going vessels as far as the berths at Howdendyke, which lie about one and a half miles downstream of the Boothferry bridge. Arrangements also exist for unlicensed pilots to take vessels upstream from Howdendyke to Selby.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in June 1980, the York city council, as trustee of the Ouse navigation and owner of Foss navigation, applied to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade for a pilotage order. The purpose of the order is to establish an Ouse and Foss pilotage district, within which pilotage would be compulsory on the river Ouse between Goole and York. It will provide for the council to be the pilotage authority

for the new district. The order was advertised in November 1980 and 18 objections to the proposals were received. These objections were put to the York city council for comment last January, and, although my Department has been pressing for a response I have had no positive reply from it so far. Last week, however, I was advised by the council that it has now entered into discussion with the British Waterways Board to explore the transfer of navigation responsibilities to that board. If agreement is reached on the transfer, it will then be necessary for the waterways board to consider whether it wishes to introduce compulsory pilotage by means of a new order.
I can assure the hon. Member for Goole that officials in my Department have remained, and will remain in close contact with York city council and other interested parties about the draft pilotage order promoted in November 1980. When the council's attitude towards the objections received to the order have been clarified, I propose to refer the matter to the Pilotage Commission, which has a statutory duty—as the hon. Gentleman will know—to advise the Secretary of State for Trade on pilotage matters. In the light of its recommendations, it will fall to me to decide if the order should be made.
Whilst I fully appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Goole about the safety of navigation on the upper Ouse, he will understand that there is absolutely no way of hastening these procedures. They are deliberately designed to give all interested parties the opportunity to have their views properly considered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurances that I am doing all that I can to encourage those directly concerned to reach agreement on pilotage for this area. I hope that I have given him enough assurances for him to withdraw his objections.

Mr. John Prescott: I wish to speak briefly, because I was one of the objectors to the Bill during an earlier stage in the last Session. I put on record my thanks to the Humberside county authority. After consultation—admittedly with the new Labour administration, not the old Tory administration—it readily agreed to meet my objections. There was not total satisfaction about fire cover on the river, but at least the Fire Brigades Union and the authority decided to talk to each other again and to find a solution for the problem that affects seafarers, particularly in the Humberside area. Other matters concerning bridges across the River Hull reached a satisfactory conclusion. Finally, discrimination in favour of the city of Hull as regards resources from the transport supplementary grant to Hull corporation buses was readily granted on the advent of a new Labour Administration at county hall.
Therefore, since the parties involved with the Bill are aware that I was one of the objectors, I put on record my thanks for their co-operation. I shall support the Bill. Several points have been made about navigation on the river. It has been made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) that there is concern about vessels on the river and that there is an argument about priority vis-a-vis road users and river traffic. Obviously, as an ex-seafarer I am concerned about the safety of vessels. Traditionally, vessels under way have priority in such circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Goole has deployed his case properly on behalf of his constituents. However, I must tell those interested in the river that the size of the


vessels that now go down the river is remarkable. A few years ago we were talking about vessels of a few hundred tonnes. We are now beginning to talk about 1,000-tonne vessels. Indeed, the constituents of the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) have gone to hon. Members on both sides of the House to complain about the toll bridge at Selby. When they presented their case they pointed out that one problem was that a massive ship had run into the bridge, making it difficult to open or close it.
One genuine grievance concerns limited liability. I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole. He said that the main London rail link across the river had been put out of action by a coaster hitting the bridge and putting it out of action for nine months. The most disturbing fact was that the vessel's limited liability meant that it did not pay more than 10 per cent. of the total cost. British Rail had to meet the major cost of repair and, as a result of the limited liability, was not able to get back the full costs. Whether the British Waterways Board or York city council is responsible, there is increasing sensitivity, particularly in my area, over the fact that millions of tonnes of traffic continue to be diverted from the Hull ports into an area in which a lot of public money has been invested, to the small wharves that are developing at a considerable rate. In the early 1970s there were considerable problems. If a pilotage order encourages that growth, particularly with the British Waterways Board, the early 1980s will see the reappearance of such sensitivities among dock workers.
I have made those comments as a warning to the Minister, as he is apparently considering the pilotage matter. I hope that the Bill will receive the blessing of the House, as required by Humberside county council.

Sir Patrick Wall: I have a letter from Humberside county council, and I shall quote one paragraph. it states:
I have written to Mr. K. McNamara, the Member for Hull Central, and Mr. A. V. Mitchell, the Member for Grimsby, to request them to open and close the debate, respectively on behalf of the County Council.
I understand that we are discussing clause 10. I should like to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether we shall debate the whole of the Bill. There are many issues that I should like to raise.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that he had blocked the Bill until the county council changed political complexion. Does that mean that the Opposition are trying to block debate on the Bill again? Will you give a ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order?

Sir Patrick Wall: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are debating the amendment, which seeks to leave out clause 10. We cannot debate the whole Bill.

Sir Patrick Wall: I take it that we can debate only bridges, pilotage and rivers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can debate only what is in clause 10.

Sir Patrick Wall: For many years I have travelled over the Boothferry bridge and I am glad that there is now an alternative route over the river Ouse. It is not in my

constituency and is the concern of the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). Therefore I cannot contribute much to that debate. Another riverway is Beverley beck in my constituency——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. We are debating clause 10. Other amendments may be moved later. If they refer—I do not know whether they do—to matters in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he will have an opportunity to debate them then, but not now.

Sir Patrick Wall: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that ruling. I shall defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Howden, whose constituency has a particular interest in clause 10.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The letter to which the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) referred has been outdated by events and was written in the light of the proposal
That the Bill be considerd upon this day six months".
It arose from the desire of the promoters, the county council, to expedite the Bill. I share that desire, because we in Grimsby are very concerned with some of its provisions. I hate to see legislation for lusher, plumper parts of the country, such as the Bill for Kent, speeding ahead of the Humberside Bill. The Bill has been delayed for legitimate reasons. Now we want to expedite its progress. The letter does not apply in the situation that exists this evening, because we are merely discussing clause 10.
The provisions of clause 10 were inserted, not at the desire of the promoters, but at the instance of the Department of Trade after consultation with the Department of Transport. It is right that the first part of the clause, which will be removed by the amendment, providing for a navigable width of 125 ft to be maintained during repair or alteration, should be in the Bill. The rest of the clause takes up section 34 of the 1925 Act, which is a protective provision. It would not cease to have effect at the end of 1984, because of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. It is reasonable for it to continue in this form, because it is usual for river traffic to have precedence over road traffic. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's annoyance. I, too, have been annoyed, waiting in queues by that bridge. However, it is a normal provision which prevails everywhere else. After all, rivers were there before roads.
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's views regarding the pilotage order. In a sense, his argument is irrelevant to the clause because the procedures for a pilotage order are now under way. They await the observations of the city of York council. From that point of view, they are irrelevant to the Bill, because nothing that happens to the Humberside Bill in relation to the amendment will have any effect on those procedures. I hope that the procedures will be expedited, but from the practical point of view they are irrelevant to the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not push the amendment to a Division.

Sir Paul Bryan: I apologise for coming late to the debate. I am bound to say that it has taken quite a different form from the one I had expected. I had expected


a wide-ranging debate on items such as fire precautions, street trading, the Beverley beck, public order, appeals to the magistrates' courts, and so on, which would last some time. I intended to come in later and discuss what I know about, the Boothferry bridge, with my neighbour from the other side of the river, the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). I regret, therefore, not having heard his speech.
However narrow the debate, when we discuss one bridge we have to discuss the others. Each of the four bridges that cross the Humber depends on and affects the others. If one is closed, the others have more traffic.
During the past two years, we have seen great changes. The biggest change is, of course, the Humber bridge, that great engineering feat that represents all the best and the worst of British achievement. I suppose that, as an engineering achievement, it is unequalled in the world. During the summer, when I was going across the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco, it was admitted there that we had a longer one-span bridge than they had, although they made the usual crack that "That bridge goes from nowhere to nowhere". I tried to put that right. It has absolutely transformed the Boothferry bridge, and we should be proud of it and hope for the best.
I do not know whether the Minister can tell us how the Humber bridge is doing in terms of the numbers using it, in relation to the budget that we hoped for. I am an optimist about the Humber bridge, and I hope that it will be a great success.
From my own party point of view, it is as well that it should be a success, because in the reorganisation of local government, the real reason for Humberside, as opposed to East Yorkshire—which I hotly favoured—was the concept of both sides of the river being one community. If the Humber bridge is a failure and the two communities do not come together, the whole concept of Humberside will be a community failure. So I wish it good luck.
Further down the river, there is another great engineering achievement, the M62 bridge, which is just next door to Boothferry bridge. Boothferry used to bear the great burden of traffic across the river at that point. That has now been transformed. One can get on to the M62 at the Howden junction and get across in no time at all. It is a very different picture from the queues that used to build up at each side of the Boothferry bridge. That, too, has been a great engineering achievement and, frightening though it is to cross it on a windy day, it has done its job and we are proud of it.
Going further down the river, we have the most controversial bridge of all, the famous Selby toll bridge, based on an Act of 1792, which, uniquely, allows all the tolls to be tax-free. For that reason, ever since 1792, various governmental bodies have tried to buy the bridge. Whenever they have come to tot up how much the proper price would be for a tax-free toll bridge, it has always been too great.
My predecessor, Colonel Ropner, in a jocular mood, once said to me "You never want to get that problem solved because it has given me speeches for 30 years". I am bound to say that it looks as though it will do the same for me, because the problem still is not solved. On one occasion, I made a speech in the House in which I said that the bridge must be worth £1 million. At that time, that was a lot of money. I immediately received a letter from the owner. At least, I had smoked out the owner. I had thought that it was two little old ladies at Littlehampton. In fact, the owner was quite a proprietor of river crossings and he

asked to meet me. He gave me a very expensive lunch in London, which he could well afford. He told me that the price of £1 million that I had put on the bridge was excessive. I replied that I did not doubt for a minute that it was wrong, because I had no figures. He said "Will you get up and admit that this is the wrong figure?" I said that I would certainly do so, if he would tell me what the right figure was, but he was unwilling to do so.
We still have the Selby bridge. The tragedy has become even more extreme because, by a stroke of fate, it has become the gateway to the biggest and most modern coalfield in the world. This extraordinary, antediluvian, Heath Robinson arrangement is the way into the marvellous Selby coalfield on which £500 million or more is to be spent. Finance is a strange business under any Government. We can afford £500 million for this development. Anything that the National Coal Board does in my constituency is beautifully done. It spends £1 million on a fairly small road, but when the money comes out of another pocket, we cannot have our toll bridge. So on the story goes, and I shall give this speech until I die. We are still talking about it, and it is still too expensive. Once we get a bypass there, the Boothferry bridge, about which my neighbour the hon. Member for Goole speaks tonight, shall be well within itself, if I may put it that way.
As, unfortunately, I was not here to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Goole, I do not know what changes he wants. As far as I am concerned, considering all one's worries in life and in one's constituency, the Boothferry bridge is now less of a worry than it has ever been in the past. It was never a great toil, nor overhung my life, except from time to time when I received a courteous letter from an authority giving me long warning that the bridge would be closed for a number of weeks and stating what arrangements were being made.
I would examine the letter and think that that would be awkward for people close to the bridge, but I realised that as it was an old bridge from time to time it would need repair and something would have to be done about it. Everyone was warned and everything that could practically be done was done. It was explained to those who complained what was being done and it seemed all right. In the new circumstances with the other bridges—the Humber bridge, the M62 bridge and the same old toll bridge still going strong—the pressure on the Boothferry bridge must be less than it has been in the past.
I have no strong views on whether the priority should go to ships going up the river or to the people going over the bridge. What has happened so far seems to have worked without undue hardship and without animosity. I should have thought that now that those going over the bridges are in a slightly stronger position than they used to be, it would be best to leave the matter as it is.
Therefore, I am afraid that my speech has not been half as satisfactory as it would have been, had I been able to listen to, or been wise enough to have been here in time to listen to, the hon. Member for Goole. hope that at least I have added something to the debate.

Mr. Robert Banks: I hesitate to intervene in the debate, but I am prompted to do so by the interesting and eloquent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). He referred to the Humber bridge and then to the Selby bridge. I should like to make two comments, one about the Humber bridge and the second about the proposition of toll bridges in general.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That would not be in order. The hon. Gentleman should stick to clause 10, which would be in order. I allowed the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) to talk about the other bridges in relation to the Boothferry bridge, but not otherwise.

Mr. Banks: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a relationship between those bridges. I do not want to trespass against your ruling. My hon. Friend was right to say that the bridges are interconnected as they all serve traffic in the Humberside area. One bridge interrelates with the other.
The Humber bridge is the largest single-span bridge in the world. It is strange that we have not given it the recognition that it deserves. Perhaps we have been affected by the cost and by the time it took to be built. However, as an engineering feat, it is remarkable. That bridge is there not only to serve traffic under it and over it, but as a focal point for tourists who come to Humberside and who will want to have the experience of crossing it—I am sure they will want to have the experience of crossing the Boothferry bridge at the same time.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman in his dissertation on the Humber bridge because he has been told that that is not relevant to the clause. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) that the Humber bridge is a white elephant?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will not pursue the question of the Humber bridge. Let us return to the subject of the Boothferry bridge.

Mr. Banks: I shall endeavour to do so.
The Boothferry bridge has many similarities to the Selby bridge. It is an old bridge and needs maintenance and repair, as is obvious from the clause that deals with its maintenance. It is surprising that many such toll bridges look as though they need much maintenance. We pay about 5p to cross those bridges and sometimes we wonder whether any money goes into painting and looking after them. Selby, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Howden referred, is rather like that. When one crosses it, one is aware of how old it is, as when one crosses the Boothferry bridge.
My hon. Friend referred to the problem of Governments trying to acquire that bridge. That is a matter of great importance. Whether they would be right to do so is debatable. I maintain that it is better to let private enterprise build a bridge, put up a toll booth and take the money for the cost of the bridge and its maintenance. That is a point that I know that you are anxious for me not to follow, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can tell by your angle in your seat that it is causing difficulty.
However, I hope that the Bill will go through. I am grateful for this small opportunity to say a few words about it.

Mr. Michael Brown: The Boothferry bridge is a bridge that I and my constituents have had to use a great deal during the last few years until the opening of the Humber bridge. As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Humber bridge is not relevant to the debate, but with regard to the route by which people in my constituency travel to Hull it has an important bearing in its relation to the Boothferry bridge.
The Boothferry bridge is situated about 15 miles to the west of Scunthorpe. In the days before the Humber bridge was built, my constituents would travel 15 miles to the west across the Boothferry bridge to go to Hull. As we have heard in the arguments in favour of the Humber bridge, many people wish to travel to Scunthorpe from Hull. Although that journey has been lessened by the opening of the Humber bridge, many of my constituents who live on the west side of Scunthorpe still use the Boothferry bridge.
Hon. Members should be aware that the toll for the Humber bridge, which is £1 for cars and £7.50 for lorries, dissuades a number of people living in the western part of my constituency from using that bridge. Therefore, the conventional means of transporting goods and passengers from Scunthorpe to Hull has always been over the Boothferry bridge.
Nowadays we are told that the great Humber bridge is the way by which people should travel. I hope and believe that people in Scunthorpe, Brigg and Barton will persuade themselves that that is a more attractive route to Hull. However, now that the motorway system links Scunthorpe to the Boothferry bridge, which leads to Hull, people are able to join the system west of Scunthorpe. They can travel over the Boothferry bridge and therefore arrive at Hull in the same time as if they had gone over the Humber bridge.
A number of my constituents will be concerned at clause 10(2) which states:
Subject to any byelaws made under section 9 (Byelaws as to opening bridges) of this Act in respect of the Boothferry Bridge the opening span of that bridge shall be used maintained and worked in such a manner as to give absolute preference and priority to all vessels navigating or employed on the river Ouse".
In the old days before the Humber bridge was opened, when my constituents wished to travel by car or public transport, there was no doubt that traffic queues over the Boothferry bridge could be caused. Considerable traffic jams used to occur. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) has visited my constituency many times and is well aware of that traffic hazard. We accept that the flow of traffic will now be reduced because the people in my constituency may prefer the quicker but more expensive route via the Humber bridge. We accept that traffic chaos and delay will be reduced when the bridge is open to navigable vessels.
That will not be so for the people who live in East Butterwick, a village about 20 miles, as the crow flies, from the Humber bridge. If the people of that village, which is situated on the river Trent, want to go to Hull via the Humber bridge they will not be enticed by the prospect of a £1 toll. They will seriosly consider using this other bridge, and if they are delayed by navigation operations and vessels using that bridge, they may feel greatly inconvenienced.
I hope that the majority of my constituents will use the Humber bridge. I hope that they will feel that it is a community asset that should be used to the maximum. I believe that the majority of people living in Scunthorpe, and in Brigg and Broughton to the east, will use the Humber bridge instead of the Boothferry bridge, as they used to do.
The fact still remains that people living in a narrow corridor of my constituency between Scunthorpe and the river Trent will continue to use the preferred route of the Boothferry bridge. Many hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and myself, can


testify to the inconvenience that was caused to county councillors attending meetings in Beverley. They will testify to the traffic delays that will continue to occur when this bridge is opened.
If we believe in free consumer choice, we must accept that where a second route is available at much lower cost, our constituents should have the right to use that route and not feel that they will be second class citizens to the river traffic underneath the bridge which, according to the clause, will have priority. As I interpret the clause, people operating navigable vessels along the river Ouse will have priority over my constituents who live between Scunthorpe and the River Trent—that narrow corridor of villages that includes Gunness.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to expedite the passage of the Bill. To enable him to do so, it may be useful if I point out that the clause was inserted at the insistence of the Department of Trade after consultation with the Department of Transport. This is standard procedure. It is usual to give river traffic precedence over road traffic. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's constituents are suffering no more than people in other parts of the country from the fact that rivers came before the roads.

Mr. Brown: I have a great personal regard for the hon. Gentleman. He continually puts the interests of his constituents in Grimsby before anything else. The hon. Gentleman does his constituency a great service by not always having regard to natural geographical factors and by treating them as secondary to the interests of his constituents.
He has pointed out that the clause has been inserted in the Bill with the approval—possibly even at the suggestion—of the Departments of Trade and Transport. I take his point that those two Departments are controlled and run very well. While I have a tremendous regard for my right hon. and hon. Friends who run those Departments, I wish to follow the fine lead of the hon. Member for Grimsby and put the interests of my constituents above the geographical factors that happen to bedevil the county of Humberside.
We are saddled with the great accident of geography called the river Humber and the river Ouse. At the end of the day, we want to make a go of the county of Humberside. It was because of that that, with one or two recent exceptions, we supported the importance of the Humber bridge. At the end of the day we must accept that, even if inconvenience is caused by a geographical factor, it is still an inconvenience. We must recognise that constituents may write to us about this important issue. I must therefore bear in mind that there is nothing more important for the people of East Butterwick than their ability to get to Hull without inconvenience.
I do not believe that those people should be inconvenienced. Is the hon. Member for Grimsby seriously suggesting that in reply to their letters I should write "Thank you very much for your representations in connection with the Humberside Bill. I am terribly sorry that I could do nothing in the House of Commons to defend your interests, but the fact is that the River Humber and the River Ouse are an accident of geography, and, I regret, you will have to put up with the inconvenience". I doubt whether any hon. Member could honestly send such a reply. I am sure that the hon. Member for Grimsby is not suggesting that I should do so.
Our constituents expect us to give serious consideration to the fact that throughout the years they have been able to use this bridge and that now their interests will be secondary to river traffic. The hon. Member for Grimsby says that is the way of the world, and that river traffic has always taken precedence over local people who use the roads. Let us consider what that river traffic will be.
It will be not local traffic but traffic that has come from abroad, including Europe. Obviously, we want the river utilised to the greatest extent. We want to see river traffic along the river Humber and the river Trent, because that will bring economic benefits to the Yorkshire and Humberside region. However, at all times river traffic should take second place to the interests of local people who must put up with the inconvenience time and again.

8 pm

Mr. Richard Body: My hon. Friend is arguing the case with great cogency on behalf of his constituents. Will he say how many constituents are involved? At one stage I thought that there might be just a few and that we should subjugate their interests to the greater interests. How many are involved? Is it a limited number? Will my hon. Friend tell us a little more about the sort of inconveniences that they are suffering? We appreciate that they may wish to go to Beverley, which is an attractive town, but there may be other places to which they will wish to go.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has asked a valid question. The number of people who live on the western corridor of my constituency between Scunthorpe and the river Trent is fairly small. Basically, they live in the villages of Flixborough, Gunness, East Butterwick and Messingham. They are not populous villages, but the people who live there will be unlikely, if they are travelling to Hull, to use the Humber bridge because it involves a long motorway journey and a substantial toll on the bridge, when they are already half-way to Hull were they able to use the Boothferry bridge. The only disincentive to them using the Boothferry bridge is the inconvenience caused by the fact that the bridge gives priority to vessels using the river.

Sir Paul Bryan: To add conviction to his argument, will my hon. Friend explain why the people of East Butterwick would want to go to Hull?

Mr. Brown: I am in the business of persuading all my constituents to use Scunthorpe, and the constituency of the hon. Member for Grimsby, for shopping purposes. I am a loyal South Humberside supporter, as is the hon. Gentleman. In an argument, I always give preference to the concept that any of my constituents who wants to go to Hull for shopping purposes should first consider the excellent shopping facilities in Scunthorpe and, secondly, those in Grimsby. I am sure that the hon. Member for Grimsby will forgive me for putting Grimsby second. He will understand the spirit in which I say that.
If a constituent tells me that Hull is a larger city, a city where he can get a wider choice, I have a responsibility to ensure that all the routes to and from Hull and Scunthorpe are kept as open as possible. Perhaps there is a two-way traffic. It is possible that certain people in Hull want to go to Scunthorpe and East Butterwick to see the delights that the towns and villages in my constituency can offer. Perhaps they want to take a more scenic route, via


the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Howden and want to use the Boothferry bridge, but if they are subjected to the provisions of clause 10(2) they will feel that they are unwanted citizens in the local area. If they have to travel between Hull and Scunthorpe, they will have to put up with traffic jams as they contemplate, rather sadly, the priority that is given to vessels.
The hon. Member for Grimsby said earlier that it has always been the rule of the road or the river that vessels on the river have priority over vehicles on the roads. We should consider that more seriously. What cargo are those vessels carrying? Many of my constituents and those of the hon. Gentleman will be deeply concerned and possibly offended by the fact that some of those ships travelling up and down the river, causing inconvenience on the Boothferry bridge because it has to give priority to vessels, are bringing in goods from other countries. What sort of goods are they bringing in? Perhaps some of the commodities coming in along that river are commodities that the hon. Member for Grimsby and I would not wish to enter the country. So, we have a double problem. We have the problem of inconveniencing my constituents, and possibly the hon. Gentleman's constituents if they want to take the scenic route to Hull via Scunthorpe, and the problem of giving way to river traffic that may be bringing in goods and services from the Continent that are detrimental to the economy, not only of the Yorkshire and Humberside region, but of the country as a whole.
When we consider the clause, we must remember that we are opening the gates of the United Kingdom, via the Boothferry bridge, to cargo from abroad. The Boothferry bridge is the first bridge that opens when a ship comes in from the Continent, and when ships go under that bridge their captain and crew are confident that they have brought their raw materials from abroad into this country.

Sir Paul Bryan: Does my hon. Friend, like me, receive notice from the authorities when the Boothferry bridge is to be closed for repair?

Mr. Brown: I say with regret that in my two and a half years of membership of the House I have not received such notice. It may have been the intention of the authorities which operate the bridge to write to me, but perhaps they felt that since the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe is now concerned only with the Humber bridge they could forget about those of his constituents who might otherwise have used the Boothferry bridge, and therefore have not advised me. I cannot recollect, certainly this year, ever having received notice of repairs that have been undertaken on the Boothferry bridge. As the Member of Parliament for that constituency, I should have been advised because I might have wished to advise my constituents, through the local newspapers, of the fact that they would not be able to use the Boothferry bridge.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I am sick of that bridge.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says that he is sick of the bridge, but he should know better, because he is a man who, rightly, defends his constituents to the end. He will allow no planning application, no accident of geography and no coal mine to stand in his way when he seeks——

Mr. Haynes: I said that I was sick of hearing about the Boothferry bridge. That is all.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has missed the whole point of the debate—the Boothferry bridge I suggest that he goes to the Vote Office and collects a copy of the Bill. On the advice that has been given today, we are here principally—between now and 10 o'clock—to debate the importance of the Humber bridge.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. It is not the Humber bridge. It is the other bridge.

Mr. Brown: I apologise. That was a Freudian slip of the tongue. It would need an all-night sitting to debate the merits of the Humber bridge. The House is unfortunate in that it has only a short time to discuss the merits of the Boothferry bridge for my constituency.

Mr. Gary Waller: It has been rightly said that some of those who may wish to cross the Boothferry bridge may object that their progress is hindered because ships are coming up the river carrying goods from the Continent. Selby has one of the fastest growing populations in the United Kingdom. In future we shall see a great increase in output from that area. It is much more likely that in future ships travelling along the river and passing below the Boothferry bridge will be carrying goods to the Continent in furtherance of our export effort.

Mr. Brown: I accept my hon. Friend's argument. The Selby coalfield is likely to expand in the near future. We hope that that the export of coal will be given top priority by both Conservative and Labour Governments. The coal will be transported along the rivers Ouse and Humber and will pass under the Boothferry bridge. The inconvenience to which I have been addressing my remarks will increase when the bridge has to be closed to road traffic and opened for river traffic. There will be the problem of the incoming river traffic and the more difficult problem that will arise from the export effort from the Selby coalfield.
I cannot stand idly by and watch my constituents inconvenienced. I accept that it may be the same small group of constituents in East Butterwick that is inconvenienced. That group represents a small proportion of my constituents, but am Ito say "You are only a small group of my constituents and you are nearer to Hull if you use the Boothferry bridge"? Am I then to say "By using the bridge you can absolve yourself from the expense of using the Humber bridge, although I know that you will have to put up with even more inconvenience when the coal from Selby is transported along the river"? What will they say when I explain "As your constituency Member I can consider only the interests of the majority"?
Labour Members, and members of the Labour Party in my constituency, draw to my attention at all times the fact that although I was elected by a small majority I must have regard to the wider interests of all my constituents, including those who did not vote for me. I interpret that as meaning that I have to take account at all times of minority interests. In this instance it is a small minority. None the less, it will be inconvenienced. We should not accept the clause on the nod. It is right and proper that I draw attention to the inconvenience that will be caused to a small group. Its use of the Humber bridge will be


marginal because its members live 15 or 20 miles away from it. They might well be inconvenienced by the use of the boothferry bridge.
8.15 pm
The clause is worthy of serious debate between now and 10 o'clock because of the implications for a narrow band of my constituency. I regret the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) is unable to be present. He has commitments elsewhere. However, I am sure that if he were here he would agree that the arguments that I have deployed on behalf of the residents of East Butterwick are likely to apply to the residents of West Butterwick, who reside on the other side of the river Trent just half a mile away. I have in mind the small group of villages in that part of his constituency. My hon. Friend is an aggressive defender of the rights of minorities in his constituency, including the rights of residents along the Trent on the west bank of his constituency.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough were present, I am sure that he would support my arguments. I am sure that he would agree that those on the west bank of the Trent are not likely to want to cross the Trent, travel through my constituency and subsequently cross the Humber bridge.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is raising an important point relating to the comfort of his constituents and their travelling arrangements. It seems to me from what he is saying that there is likely to be more traffic than less traffic in future. This will mean that the bridge will be opening and shutting more often and, therefore, will need more maintenance and repair. Has he had any inkling of the number of repairs that are likely in the near future, which could perhaps help in giving a picture to his constituents as to whether it is reliable to use that bridge?

Mr. Brown: That is something that I had not considered. I had assumed that the Boothferry bridge would be able to operate in a technically correct manner that would not require very much maintenance and repair. My hon. Friend draws to my attention the fact that, in the event of the Selby coalfield generating more traffic under the bridge, the bridge will be used more and more. The more that any type of swinging bridge, hinged bridge or moving bridge is used, the greater the amount of maintenance required. There will be the inconvenience of shutting the bridge while traffic passes underneath it. We have to consider the inconvenience of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough when normal bridge use is taking place. Alternatively, we have to consider the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) that repairs will create an additional inconvenience which I had not considered.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Perhaps tunnels are the answer.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is fortunate in having a tunnel in his constituency and not a bridge. In fact, he has two tunnels. That means that my arguments are somewhat new for him. Clearly he has listened to the problems that might have befallen his constituency if he had had a Boothferry bridge or a Dartford bridge that swung to allow traffic to pass underneath. However, he is not bothered with those problems, although he is concerned.

Mr. Haynes: What has Dartford to do with it?

Mr. Brown: My constituents and all those in constituencies that have boundaries on the Rivers Humber and Ouse have to consider crossing territory overland or over the river. It is so much easier if a tunnel is available. In this debate it is not for me to consider whether in place of the Boothferry bridge there should be a Boothferry tunnel. One might well speculate on the advantages of a Humber tunnel or a Boothferry tunnel. A tunnel would be the answer to all the problems. I am sure that everyone in Humberside would be prepared to consider a tunnel as an alternative if public moneys were available. However, when the nation is having to tighten its belt we cannot realistically expect a Boothferry tunnel in the near future.
It seems that we are saddled with a Boothferry bridge, much as I and all Humberside Members would like a tunnel. That option is closed to us. Therefore, we have to consider the implications of the Boothferry bridge. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who represents a constituency in which there are two tunnels, that a tunnel would solve the problem. However, that is an unrealistic option.

Mr. Banks: Is it not a fact that the advantage of a tunnel rather than a bridge is that it is not as susceptible to the weight of vehicles that pass through it? Is it not also a fact that the weight of vehicles on a bridge such as the Boothferry bridge has an important impact on the repairs and maintenance that must be undertaken to keep the bridge serviceable?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate made a valid point in his support of tunnels. Conservative Members are deeply concerned about the importance of public expenditure. No one wants to see the bridge replaced by a tunnel more than myself, but that option is closed for the time being. I note the advantages of a tunnel over a bridge, but in solving the problems to which I have drawn attention in the debate, that is not an alternative that we can consider for the time being. If the nation were so overwhelmed with public money that the Government did not know what to do with it, or if the people of East Butterwick became so frustrated that they wished to form a private company to construct a tunnel, I should like to think that a Government Department might seriously consider allowing them to do so. I do not think that that option will be available in the near future.
I hope that I shall have the pleasure of representing my constituents for a long time, but, even if I am fortunate enough to be in the House when I am aged 65 or 70, I do not think that there will be any opportunity for considering a Boothferry tunnel private Bill. For better or worse, and for the lifetime of most hon. Members—there is now only one hon. Member younger than myself in the House—we are likely to be saddled with the present Boothferry bridge, with its inadequacies and inconveniences.

Mr. Body: My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way again. I appreciate that he does not wish to speak at any length, but he is making a cogent speech on his constituents' behalf, and all hon. Members appreciate the way in which he is doing it. However, does he not consider that the clause might be a little premature? The House has yet to decide whether it will permit the heavier lorries on the roads. There is some relevance in that. Hon. Members may treat it jocularly, but it is important to the Butterwick people, as we have already established to our satisfaction


If the Boothferry bridge is to be repaired it is important to remember the necessarily expensive repairs that will be required in the future, with much heavier lorries on the roads. However, we do not know whether the House will agree to the much heavier lorries. Has my hon. Friend made any calculations about the cost that might arise in that case? If we have the heavier lorries we shall have to have considerably larger and strengthened bridges throughout the country, which might well cost about £250 million. We all recognise that my hon. Friend is valiant in the cause of trying to restrain unnecessary public expenditure. Perhaps he will have some regard to that point before he concludes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I shall guide the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) in answering that question. It would be wrong for him to refer to forthcoming legislation. We do not know whether we shall have the heavier lorries.

Mr. Brown: I accept your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not for hon. Members to anticipate legislation, but when the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement earlier this week he suggested that we could expect some legislation, and he hoped that the House would approve it within the current parliamentary Session. Therefore, within this Session, assuming that my right hon. Friend gets his way in the House—I accept that there is some doubt whether that will happen—the legislation will be on the statute book.
Since we are legislating for the future and the Bill contains powers which will go up to 1984, I presume that the assumption behind the Government's thinking—certainly the Secretary of State's thinking—is that by 1984 there will be heavier lorries crossing the Boothferry bridge.
The Bill contains powers which will go beyond this Session—indeed, possibly beyond the lifetime of this Parliament. We have to bear in mind the likelihood that there will be heavier lorries going over the Boothferry bridge. I accept that it would not be right in this debate to consider the arguments for and against heavier lorries, but we are legislating for the use of a bridge to open and close for river traffic for a period which will extend beyond this Session of Parliament.
According to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, there will be implications concerning the repair and maintenance of the Boothferry bridge. Therefore, with deep respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that it is right for me in passing to refer to the comments made by my hon. Friends in that respect.
I shall not go into the debate about heavier lorries but will confine myself to the effect of heavy lorries—the same lorries that my right hon. Friend will be seeking to load with more goods, more capacity, and more weight. Those lorries will be going over the Boothferry bridge. Heavy lorries, even of the size permitted today, impose a strain on the Boothferry bridge and therefore create a great problem for its future maintenance. The damage that is caused, even by today's lorries, will lead to yet more repairs, and inconvenience to the people of East Butterwick.

Mr. Prescott: The whole basis of the Secretary of State's argument about heavier lorries is that they will not

cause any extra damage to bridges. I hope that we shall see the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) in the Lobby with us on Wednesday—or is this just empty rhetoric?

Mr. Brown: Earlier this year I had the pleasure of serving with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on the Transport Bill. I detect possible support from an unlikely quarter in favour of the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I look forward to being in Committee again with the hon. Gentleman, who will no doubt be leading in his usual eloquent way for the official Opposition.
If I were tempted by the hon. Gentleman to move away from the Boothferry bridge, I should then be out of order. Much as I should like to debate with him my views on the Secretary of State's proposals, if I were to go down that road who knows where I might end up? I do not wish to succumb to that temptation. I wish to stay within the rules of order.
8.30 pm
I accept the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that an extra axle without any extra length of vehicle crossing the Boothferry bridge will cause no further damage to the bridge. But what my right hon. Friend said on Tuesday was that as a result of his statement, there would be fewer lorries. If there are to be fewer lorries, we face the prospect of less strain on the bridge. So we have here a great debate. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are probably suggesting that I am contradicting earlier arguments. That is arguable. There are two clear arguments.
Initially, I was tempted down the road that heavier lorries, because of the statement made earlier this week by the Secretary of State, would cause extra strain on the bridge.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clause 10 deals with a measure which provides that the navigable width shall be 38·1 metres and that there shall be absolute preference for all vessels employed on the river Ouse. I fail to see that a discussion on lorry weights is of any relevance to the clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I warned the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) about this matter. It would be in order to refer to the weight of lorries crossing the bridge, but I do not want any discussions of whether there should be heavier lorries, which is the subject of other legislation.

Mr. Brown: You put me in great difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that I am having to anticipate the end of this Session when we shall have on the statute book a Humberside Act and perhaps a provision for heavier lorries. I accept that I may not pursue the heavier lorries aspect, as I have been so sorely tempted to do by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. However, the latter has suggested to me that there is another side of the coin. That is that if one accepts the principles behind the statement by the Secretary of State for Transport there will be fewer lorries, which means that not so much strain may be imposed on the bridge.
However, I want to return to the central theme of the debate. [Interruption.] It appears that I have been speaking for a short time and have failed to convey to the House the


central theme of the debate. For those hon. Members who have been listening to the point that I have been trying to make on behalf of my constituents in East Butterwick, I should have thought that the central theme is that people from my constituency, in private cars or public transport, are being asked to put themselves in a secondary, subservient position to that of river traffic carrying either imports from the Continent or exports from the Selby coalfield.
That is the central theme of the debate. It is the inconvenience that will be caused to the people of East Butterwick when they are stopped and they learn that they are being held up because the bridge is open for river traffic. It will not be shut to river traffic in order to give priority to my constituents. The central theme is the inconvenience to those people from East Butterwick who wish to travel to Hull for shopping or business purposes.
Unless that argument can be conveyed while we debate this clause, we shall find that the arguments have all been in vain.
I suggest that we return to the question of inconvenience to constituents. If we pass the clause, should we simply accept, as the hon. Member for Grimsby suggested, that the rivers Humber and Ouse are a geographical accident, and forget about my constituents, about the people of East Butterwick, Gunness and Flixborough? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should simply concede the case when we pass the clause on the nod? I do not know whether any of my colleagues will wish to divide the House on this important clause. It may be that, at the end of the day, there will be some compelling arguments from the Opposition side of the House during further debate, that will persuade me.
I have tried to put the arguments on behalf of a small group of my constituents who will be inconvenienced by the passage of the clause in its present form. We should put their rights before accidents of geography and history.

Sir Patrick Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that for the last hour and a half we have been debating the Boothferry bridge and we have had a brilliant speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown). You will also be aware that the Boothferry bridge spans the river Ouse, which meets the river Trent and they both flow into the Humber. From the Humber flows the river Hull, into the Beverley beck.
Would I, therefore, be in order in discussing the important factors of the Beverley beck in my constituency, bearing in mind that we have discussed the port of Goole? Beverley had a charter for its market under King John in 1199, well before Goole was even thought of.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Gentleman is very courteous in saying that I am aware of these things, when I am only aware of what has happened in the last 30 seconds or so. Any argument that the hon. Gentleman used that related to the bridge would be in order.

Sir Patrick Wall: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If one were to take a coastal vessel under the Boothferry bridge down the Ouse or in the opposite direction, from Hull docks up the Ouse, one would find that most vessels are now going to the smaller ports on the river, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) pointed out. Why are they bypassing the important Hull

docks? It is because they get better service and a turnround that is cheaper and quicker. That is the object of the exercise if one happens to be a shipowner.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has already addressed the House once on this subject.

Sir Patrick Wall: I addressed the House on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me. Is he still on a point of order?

Sir Patrick Wall: My first intervention, before you took the Chair, was on a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: At the moment, I have not called the hon. Gentleman. I was under the impression that he was putting a point of order that I called him and I gave him my ruling.

Sir Patrick Wall: I am sorry, I became confused as I had a point of order with your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have now ruled that it would be in order to discuss the matter I raised on the point of order I made to you, and I hope that I shall catch your eye later.

Mr. Prescott: Move the closure of the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to accept a motion for the closure.

Sir Patrick Wall: May I now make my speech, as I have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I recall it, the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) addressed the Chair earlier. He was not called on a point of order. Surely he cannot be called twice in the same debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I tried to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) to that and he assured me that he rose only on a point of order. There is no reason why I should not now call him to make a speech.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) first intervened he asked about what he might be allowed to say in the debate, but he did not do that on a point of order. Later what he could and could not say was pointed out to him. That was the end of the matter.

Sir Patrick Wall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you refer toHansard you will see that your predecessor in the Chair sked me whether I was on a point of order, and that I said that I was.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman because I was not in the Chamber at the time. I heard only his point of order. If the hon. Member for Haltemprice has already addressed the House, he would be out of order if he addressed the House on a second occasion. If that is so I am sure that he will not want to press the matter.

Mr. Wall: I do not wish to pursue the matter further, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are getting into a muddle. I understood that the first time that I addressed the House I was on a point of order because your colleague in the


Chair said so. I raised another point of order with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you gave a ruling. I thought that you wanted me to continue. However, I have probably delayed the House long enough on this confusing issue and I shall leave it at that.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put,put and agreed to.

Question, That the amendment be made,put accordingly and negatived.

Clause 29

SAVINGS FOR PART IV

Amendments made: In page 29, line 26, after "periodicals" insert
either alone or with newspapers".

In line 28, after "periodicals" insert
either alone or with newspapers".

In line 34, after "in" insert "the" and after "area" insert "covered by it".—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]

Clause 30

APPLICATION OF PART V

Amendment made: In page 30, line 27, leave out "(12)" and insert "(14)"—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]

Clause 88

APPEALS TO SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendment made: In page 77, lines 20 and 21, leave out
27 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925

and insert
16 of the Supreme Court Act 1981"—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]

Clause 101

TIDAL WORKS

Amendments made: In page 85, line 37, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3)";

In line 40, after "water" insert
being works (other than Works Nos. 1, 4 and 5 authorised by the Kingston upon Hull Corporation Act 1967)";

In page 86, leave out from "1967" in line 9 to the end of line 10;

In page 86, leave out from "Act" in line 11 to "in" in line 15;

In line 17, after "works" insert
each of which is in this section referred to as 'tidal work'";

In line 18, leave out "(3)" and insert "(2)";

In line 30, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3)" ;

In page 87, line 1, leave out "(5)" and insert "(4)";

In line 21, leave out "(6)" and insert "(5)";

In line 26, leave out "(7)" and insert "(6)";

In line 31, leave out "(8)" and insert "(7)";

In line 33, leave out "(3)" and insert "(2)";

In line 39, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3)";

In page 88, line 4, leave out "(5)" and insert "(4)";

In line 12, leave out "(7)" and insert "(6)"—[Mr. Austin Mitchell.]

Bill to be read the Third time.

Unemployment and Social Security Benefits

Resumed debate on Question, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Bottomley: I remind myself that the subject of this Adjournment debate is the Chancellor's statement yesterday and the effect on unemployment and short-term benefits. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) put forward what I have already called a very fair case for protecting those who have no other protection than unemployment and other short-term benefits. The hon. Gentleman has raised the question whether the announcement to be made by the Chancellor in the Budget early next year will give price protection to those who, on any estimate, need it. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security gave a robust defence of what the Government had done over a number of years but was obviously constrained by the decisions made by the Chancellor, as announced in his statement.
I had addressed some remarks before the debate was interrupted to the hon. Member for Wood Green. I should like to re-emphasise the importance of a falling rate of inflation. Those depending on benefits are affected not only by an uprating as compensation for inflation but also by the falling level of benefit during the 12 months between upratings. In a year that is followed by an uprating of 16 per cent. in line with inflation the average loss of benefit during the year is 8 per cent. In a year when the uprating is 10 per cent. there has been a loss of benefit on average through the year of 5 per cent.
When inflation is at a level of 10 to 16 per cent. the impact of loss of benefit during the year is more significant than the 2 per cent. that the hon. Member for Stockport, North is rightly concerned about. This debate would miss the point if hon. Members were not also concerned about the impact of inflation during the year. I go a stage further. We should be able to reduce the underlying level of inflation by 6 per cent. during the coming year if those at work are willing to settle for pay increases of about 4 per cent. that the Government intend should apply in the public sector. Even pay increases of on average 4 per cent. are inflationary if the level of output in the economy is expected to grow at about 1 per cent. There will be about a 3 per cent. contribution towards inflation.
The matter is nonsense, but it is determined by our system of pay settlements and negotiations. There are many good arguments for incomes policy. The best is to give help to those without the power of a job behind them. However, with the TUC, the Labour Party conference and the Conservative Government opposed to incomes policy, we shall not get one. The need is to get the effect of an incomes policy without actually having one.
One means of getting all groups in the community to recognise the importance of moderate pay settlements is to publicise the effect of settlements on the groups mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockport, North. It is possible to make sure, by a reduction in the level of pay settlements during the forthcoming year and the indirect effect on inflation that I believe exists, to make up the 2 per cent. I shall continue to argue for that. The 2 per cent. shortfall is also important in itself.
I welcome the Government's commitment to the old-age pensioners and those who will have the shortfall made

up in November 1982. I do not give up hope that the Government will review their decisions announced yesterday and will make up the shortfall of 2 per cent. for other groups. The cost in a full year of the 2 per cent. shortfall is about £130 million. In the fiscal year 1982–83 the figure is about £65 million, which is a small amount compared with the sums involved in the other decisions that the Government are making all the time, such as whether the British Steel Corporation needs £400 million or £500 million. In that business we are concerned with a group of perhaps 100,000 workers, which must be compared with the number of families who would be affected by the 2 per cent. shortfall in unemployment benefit. Between now and any decisions made before the Budget, it is feasible that the Government would say that because of pressure from both sides of the House they will restore the 2 per cent. shortfall in other benefits. It is worth recognising that the effective pressure must come from the Government benches. That is one reason why I believe that the speech of the hon. Member for Wood Green, although it might have been his normal style, was counterproductive.
I greatly regret that a debate of such importance as this takes place in a Chamber that is not packed full and that the press chooses not to be present to report it. Many of those about whom we are concerned need the press on their side. If we were talking about increased taxation on company cars or journalists' lunches, many more press representatives would have been present and many more people would have known tomorrow how the interests of the poor had been expressed in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that he cannot comment on whether the press is present or not.

Mr. Bottomley: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for saying that members of the press are not present in force. Perhaps I should not have said that the press do not appear to be here at all, but that also is true.
We are not talking only about those whose incomes are at the supplementary benefit level. We are talking about 300,000 children from families whose income is below the supplementary benefit level. I refer to a letter inThe Times today from Mr. Malcolm Wicks, director of the Study Commission on the Family. Although he uses 1977 figures, he said that there were 420,000 children in families below the poverty line and 980,000 children in families at the supplementary benefit level. If one takes supplementary benefit plus 40 per cent., which is by no means a high standard of living, there are about 3·5 million children and their families at that level. Those people are affected by the shortfall.
Those who believe that the supplementary benefit level is too high—very few have said that, but perhaps some feel that that is one reason why supplementary benefit should not be brought up fully in line with inflation—should experience living as a family of two adults and two children on £50 a week, which is not much money for a four-person household. We must remember that many families do not get all the benefits to which they are entitled and may be surviving on less. I welcome the suggestion, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed on Tuesday, of trying to ensure that any family that applies for benefit is checked to see whether it is entitled to other benefits.
Another important subject is child benefit, which was not properly dealt with in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement. I expect that he intends to make an anouncement on that in the spring of 1982 for the uprating in November 1982.
It is clear that the income support available to families whose breadwinner is either sick or unemployed is being reduced by the abolition of the earnings-related element of unemployment pay. When the employer-paid sick pay scheme comes in there will be no child addition. When the Government issued their Green Paper on the earnings-joined sickness benefit they said that, because child benefit was expected to rise in real terms, it might be thought reasonable to eliminate the child addition. It is quite clear that in recent years the child benefit has not risen substantially in real terms. I remind the House that the level of child income support, now child benefit, is about 25 per cent. lower in real terms than the combined value of family allowance and the child tax allowances in 1955.
Families with dependent children have not shared in the increase in the general standard of living through social security benefits or the transfer of resources through child benefits. I ask the Government to consider seriously during the next few months the pressure from both sides of the House. I ask them to recognise how much of that pressure comes from the Conservative Benches and to reconsider the £65 million involved in the fiscal year 1982–83. I hope that they will realise the importance of raising the real level of chid benefits.
I turn now to the significance of pay increases. A high pay increase does not help a low income family with dependent children. The only way that that family income can be increased is through child benefits. That is why a low pay rise requirement in the economy—or strategy, as the Government call it—requires an increase in child benefit.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the easiest way to encourage workers to settle for a low wage increase would be for the Government to declare their plans for child benefit well in advance of the pay negotiations? If they intended to be generous, there would be some chance of the appeal for low wage rises being accepted. At the moment, with all the uncertainty surrounding the issue, we cannot blame anyone for thinking that it is better to carry on with the negotiations because there is little possibility of the Government's being generous.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for the way in which he said it. The Government—indeed, successive Governments—are seriously at fault. Of course, raising child benefit does not reduce pay claims. However, it can influence pay settlements. Employers can tell those with whom they are negotiating that they cannot allow a significant wage increase, in part because they cannot afford it and in part because it does not help in the battle against inflation, which is an important prerequisite to reducing unemployment. It strengthens the power of employers to do what is sensible.
The Government need to do three things. First, they must restore the shortfall. I shall not vote against them next week if that issue arises as I want to work on them during the next three or four months. Secondly, they must

increase child benefit in 1982 by more than the rate of inflation. Thirdly, the Government should publish a Green Paper on tax and benefits over the family life cycle.
There are many ways to pay for those measures. Perhaps, on another occasion, I could put forward the options that I would support, especially in the area of child benefit. For example, next year I would not raise the married man's tax allowance. I would raise only the personal tax allowance. I would use the money saved to pay for an increase in child benefit.
We are reaching the end of the period during which the Government have had responses about the taxation of man and wife. It is ridiculous to consider only the tax element and not the benefit element. It is also ridiculous to consider only one point in time rather than the fluctuating levels of need and resources, which do not match, during the ordinary family life cycle. We must be able to say how, at different levels of income, people's resources should be affected—for example, as they leave school, find a job or are unemployed, when they marry or have children, when they are in or out of work, when in sickness or in health. What happens to resources when parents, sadly, separate or divorce? What level of benefit should parents have when their children cease to be dependent? What should be the relationship between their earnings at work and their income in retirement?
Only when the Government are willing to put forward a Green Paper on those topics will it be possible to develop general agreement on a pattern to aim at. It will then be possible for the Government to find the general support necessary to make the changes, over a period, that are most needed.
My final point—I recognise that this is a short debate—concerns the incentive-to-work argument put forward by Ministers during the last two years, which has arisen in a number of quotations produced by the research staff in the Library, when they have given various commitments about protecting certain benefits from inflation. The only people who might work, who are better off not working or who do not have much incentive to take a job are those with dependent children. The only sensible way to deal with that is to ensure that they receive the same income for their children, whether or not they are in work. The reasonable way to do that is to raise the level of child benefit. The unreasonable way to do it is to reduce the level of income when they are not at work.
Society has a basic responsibility to care for people who cannot care for themselves—the old, the sick, the unemployed and those below working age. We have not done badly for the old, the sick and the unemployed, but we have done abysmally for those caring for dependent children and we have done even worse for those on low incomes who are caring for dependent children. The test which I shall apply to the Government's proposals in the Budget is whether they will put right what they did not fully put right in the Chancellor's announcement yesterday.

Mr. Frank Haynes: It is obvious that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) agreed with what the Chancellor said yesterday and with what the Minister said earlier when the Adjournment debate began. I was shocked by some of the things said at the Dispatch Box by the Minister.
Following the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, I looked atThe Standard and was shocked and appalled at the biased feeling expressed on the front page. Yet, when I looked at the daily papers today, I saw that the Government were getting a clobbering about the statement, and particularly about social security benefits. The Minister gave the impression that everything in the garden was lovely. That might be all right for a lot of people with plenty of money in their pockets and fair-sized bank balances. However, they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. It is workers and the poor who will be affected by the action that the Government will take next week on social security benefits. Since May 1979 those people have been hit time and again, and now they are being hit once again.
A group of firms in my constituency is doing all that the Government have asked of it. The firms have reduced unit costs and increased productivity and, what is more important, there was a nil increase in earnings last year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer clobbered that group yesterday, yet it is doing what the Government asked it to do, supposedly to put the economy right.
A great many problems arise out of what was said yesterday. When I go round my constituency and enter the social security offices, what bothers me more than anything else is that there are more people applying for certain benefits, because the earnings that they receive are nowhere near high enough and therefore they must apply for supplementary benefit. When I get into the office, what do I find? The Government are hell-bent on reducing the number of civil servants. That is having an effect on the social security office in my constituency. There are empty chairs, and there is no training going on. Those responsible for training are having to do necessary work, because of the long queues outside the social security office. That is another side of the Government's social security argument.
We do not have to go far back to remember what happened at Strathclyde. The Minister said earlier that the Government had tried to let everyone know his entitlement. When Strathclyde carried out that exercise to point out clearly what people were entitled to, the Minister offered severe criticism. Strathclyde was only trying to help. The Government are not helping. They are bashing such people and, by introducing such measures, they will continue to do so. The Minister may brag about improvements—and there may be some—but he slipped easily by promises that were made by the Conservative Party before it came to power and promises that the previous Secretary of State for Social Services made about the death grant. Until now, that subject has not been mentioned.
Let us consider the arguments that we have had about the death grant. The elderly and the destitute come to my surgery and talk about having to have paupers' graves. It is disgraceful in this day and age that we have not properly considered and dealt with that matter. Some while ago the previous Secretary of State went to the annual general meeting of the British Legion and gave a time scale for increasing the death grant. What have we got? There has been no increase. That is how the Government act. The Government may talk about increasing the mobility allowance and so on, and some of the things that slip by are forgotten, although they hurt the public. The elderly live in all our constituencies and we are supposed to represent them and to do what we can on their behalf.
I accept that the Government have done something and that they have increased the mobility allowance. I shall reiterate the point that the Minister ducked earlier. I pointed out that, because of the pressure on civil servants, some of those in my constituency who used to receive mobility allowance have now been disqualified. That is appalling. The Minister should be ashamed. It would be a good idea if there were a Minister or two on the dole queue for a change and if they had to receive sickness or supplementary benefit. They would then find out how people have to manage. Let them get some experience. There is someone standing here who has experienced such things. My parents had to go through the same thing. There is an early-day motion for a statue of a certain gentleman to be placed in the Members' Lobby, although he did the same as the Government are doing to the people in terms of benefits. People had to queue up at soup kitchens and so on.
I can remember what happened when I was a lad. I can only just remember, but I remember how people were crucified by a former Conservative Administration under Mr. Baldwin. The same thing is happening under this Prime Minister. We do not make much progress. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) suggested going into the Aye Lobby or the No Lobby next week. Yet I have heard and read statements by Tory Members to the effect that if the Government do not change their minds on social security benefits they will lose the next election. I agree. It is not just a matter of social security benefits, but all the things that have been going on for the past two and a half years.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned hospital services, in passing. What he said was shocking. It is not what is happening in my constituency. I had to raise here the question of nurses going on the dole queue to enjoy unemployment benefit. That is shameful. They have received two years' training, yet they have been laid off. Is that the success that the Government are having in social security and unemployment? It is not just a question of laying off nurses after two years' training, because they have now prevented 16 people from entering the scheme for two years. The situation gets worse as time passes. That is how serious the situation is, not only in the Health Service but in social security generally in my constituency.
I felt that I had to contribute to this debate. Now I have got it off my chest. Other hon. Members will wish to speak. I have tried to make it clear that the Government must reconsider. They have time to change direction, and they must do so in the interests of those people who cannot help themselves. It is our duty to help those people and to see that they get a fair and square deal. That is what they are not getting.
Let there be no mistake: those people will make their voices heard if what is proposed goes through. I hope that some of those right hon. and hon. Members who expressed their views yesterday to the press—not in the Chamber—will be men enough to go into the right Lobby and vote against these proposals in the interests of those who cannot help themselves.

Mr. William Hamilton: We on the Labour Benches are properly concerned with questions of social welfare, particularly those which involve the groups of people about whom the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) spoke—children and people who


cannot easily defend themselves. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that—to put it mildly—they have been unfairly treated by the Government. The Government were elected on the promises, among others, that they would reduce taxation, give incentives and encouragement to everyone, care for the family, get rid of or radically reduce unemployment, and reduce the cost of living. Those were among the many and various promises that were made. Today, they are so much ash in the mouth. The Government have honoured none of those promises, which they gave to the people who brought them to power.
Let us take taxation first. Some tax figures were given by the House of Commons Library research department. Those figures are astonishing. I should not have believed them unless I had seen them and had them verified by what is recognised in all parts of the House as an incomparably efficient organisation. The research department of the Library produces figures which are accurate in every respect. When those figures were produced in the House a fortnight or so ago and the Prime Minister herself was asked to refute them, she studiously refused to do so and still refuses to do so. If the Minister can refute them, I ask her to do so tonight.
The average family on average earnings pays in tax—that is, direct tax, such as income tax, national insurance contributions and the rest, and indirect taxes, such as value added tax and the rest—£25·83 a week more than it was paying in tax in 1979–80, the year the Government won the election. The result is that the average British family pays £75·96 in Government taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday that some of those figures would be increased, notably the national insurance contribution.
The former Secretary of State for Social Services, now the Secretary of State for Industry, was the first Minister in the past 50 years to be responsible for cutting social security benefits by reducing the value of old-age pensions, as he suddenly discovered that there were 54 weeks in one year. The Government will be consistently reminded of that fact. Pensioners have therefore been deprived of two weeks' of an increase of pension to which they were entitled.
The Government have also reduced the value of unemployment benefit, sick pay and maternity allowances. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) knows that the real value of child benefit, even after last months' increase, will have fallen by one tenth since the Prime Minister took office, yet during the election she and others promised that they would care for and look after the family.
Unemployment pay had suffered particularly harsh blows, even before the announcement yesterday. The earnings-related supplement has been phased out. The supplements for dependent children have been reduced, the result being that, as compared with 1979, when the Government took office, the dole money for a man with two children has fallen by one third in real value, and that of a single man has fallen by 40 per cent.
Even after the November uprating, an unemployed single person will receive £3·32 a day to provide everything—clothing, lighting, heating and the rest—except for his housing. One of the biggest social scandals of the day is our unemployed youngsters. The unemployed school leaver will have £2 a day to keep body

and soul together. There is no sign that that amount will be increased. Those who are fortunate enough to have a job and average earnings have £20 a day, so the fellow who is lucky enough to be in work is 10 times better off than the youngster who is on the dole and six times better off than the adult who is on the dole.
I could quote many other ways in which the Government have clobbered those whom they allege that they want to protect. Before I go through the list, let me give one example. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and myself are serving on a Committee dealing with the transfer of sickness benefit. The plan is to transfer the responsibility from the State to the employer. That is a fundamental change in the Welfare State. It is part of the Government's philosophy of privatisation—a horrible word. That is happening in education, health, housing and, now, social security.
There was an article in The Guardian just the other day about the Government dismantling the philosophy on which the Health Service is based. Instead of the burden being shouldered by the generality of taxpayers, it is to be paid for by insurance. In other words, we shall have two health services. Those who can afford the premiums will have a glossy, high-flying, highly efficient health service. Those who for one reason or another cannot afford the high premiums will get a third-rate health service. That two nations principle is in direct conflict with the beliefs of that great fellow, Disraeli, whom the Tory wets often quote. It is well known that that philosophy underlies the Conservative Party's approach to the Health Service.

Mr. Best: All the Labour Party was able to achieve during its last term of office was to deny the NHS about £40 million from the private sector, which it could well have used to enhance the benefits obtainable by those subscribing to the NHS.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman had better be quiet about the Health Service. He is much too young to remember the fight that took place both inside the House and outside when the Health Service was launched. The Tory Party violently opposed the whole principle of a health service more than 30 years ago. It still dislikes it intensely because it is an oasis of Socialism in a desert of capitalism. It is perhaps the only service in the world where one gets what one needs irrespective of one's purse. That is the very principle that the Government are now undermining.
That is why, up and down the country, particularly in London but now in Glasgow, more and more private hospitals are being built with the direct encouragement of the Government. They are taking away doctors and nurses who have been trained at great public expense. Those hospitals are often owned by large American companies. They are attracting the cream of our medical and nursing professions, and leaving the Health Service to cater for the less romantic cases such as the geriatrics, the mentally retarded, and so on.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science said precisely that in a speech three or four years ago—that the Health Service financed by the taxpayer would cater for the old and the mentally handicapped, whereas the heart transplants and all the other emotional treatments would go to the private sector, and if people could not pay for them they could damned well do without.
That is exactly what happens in America. One only needs to visit America to see the result of the kind of scheme that the Government are now adumbrating. If an American falls in the street and breaks his leg, the medical service will not touch him unless he can prove that he can pay for his hospital requirements. That is now happening with social security. The Government are adopting a similar approach for education, at the very time when they are cutting education facilities across the board, from nursery schools to technical colleges and universities. They have given more money to the private fee-paying sector of education.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: For the sake of the record, the assisted places scheme in education costs no more to the State than putting a child into a maintained school. The waiting lists for operations in the National Health Service have declined dramatically. Spending in real terms on the Health Service has increased and the number of staff—whether doctors, nurses or other workers—has increased in the last two years. Those are all facts.

Mr. Hamilton: They are not all facts. I need only mention the waiting lists. No Conservative Member can pretend that the reductions in the waiting lists in the last two years are the direct responsibility of the Government.

Mr. Best: Why?

Mr. Hamilton: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. There was a build-up of people on the waiting lists in the winter of discontent—which I deplored—and then the lists became normalised. That is the prime reason. There has been no major change in policy whatever to explain the reduction in those waiting lists. Any hon. Member who pretends otherwise is being either dishonest or naive, or both.
Anyone who has seen the conditions in our hospitals and the dissatisfaction and low morale of our nursing profession will know what is happening in our Health Service. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the Dispatch Box yesterday that wages in the public sector will be held back to 4 per cent. next year. That includes nurses' salaries. He said that the inflation rate next year will be at least 10 per cent. In effect, he and Conservative Members are saying "Well done nurses. You are marvellous girls, but we are going to show our gratitude by slashing your standard of living next year, the year after and the year after that".

Mr. Peter Bottomley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He, too, must face the fact that his Government are to impose a wage limit of 4 per cent. on the very nursing profession that he pretends to applaud. His Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying that the rate of inflation next year will be 10 per cent. I suspect that it will be more. He is asking nurses and ancillary workers in hospitals—indeed, everyone in the public sector—to take a substantial reduction in their standard of living for the foreseeable future as a deliberate part of his policy.
I shall enumerate some of the policies that the Government have formulated and are in the process of formulating. According to the latest White Paper on public expenditure, the social security budget will continue to expand in real terms up to 1982–83, but most of the growth is accounted for by the increasing number of elderly people and the massive rise in unemployment. Many of the

Government's problems in regard to the public sector borrowing requirement and public expenditure are accounted for by the enormous acceleration of the unemployment figures, which will get worse. The Chancellor refused to give us a figure yesterday, but by this time next year we shall be lucky if it is much short of 4 million registered unemployed, and the hidden unemployment will add another 1 million or 2 million to the figure.
In addition to creating that unemployment the Government are cutting the benefits that I have described. I have a list of the benefits that have been cut in the past two years, but I shall give only one or two examples. There is the plan to pay child benefit monthly in arrears from 1982. I have received several letters on that issue. Child benefit for many families is a lifeline, especially for one-parent families. They budget week by week. Every penny and every minute of the day counts. However, the Government are prepared arbitrarily to say "Every new recipient from next April will have to wait one month in arrears for the benefit". When child benefit was increased by 75p in November 1980, which was 40p less than was needed to retain its value and protection against increased prices, that reflected the rise in earnings. Since then, child benefit has fallen further and further behind.
The former Secretary of State for Social Services boasted that in total the cuts would save £1·5 billion from the social security budget. Compare that with those who practice in the black economy and who, by various means, are evading or avoiding tax, are getting away with an estimated £4,000 million a year. By attacking the old folk, the sick, one-parent families—those whom any civilised society would want to protect—the Government are boasting that they will save £1·5 billion from the social security budget. At the same time they are prepared to allow the rich to get away with £4,000 million every year.
In their first two Budgets, the Government redistributed about £2,000 million to the very rich—for example, those in receipt of over £20,000 a year. They were prepared to make extremely generous tax cuts for those who already had too much. In virtually every statement that they make in the House they take away ruthlessly from those who have too little and who are generally deprived. That will be the very stuff of politics in this place from now until the next election.
We are seeing from the Government a remorseless redistribution of national wealth either in the form of income or in the form of social services. It is a ruthless, indiscriminate and cruel redistribution of that wealth in favour of those at the top and against those at the bottom. I shall quote from an editorial that appeared inThe Times, which by no stretch of the imagination can be called a Labour newspaper. On 29 October, after referring to the under-privileged groups to which I have drawn attention, the article stated:
It is not sensible or humane to argue that there should be equal sharing of burden between these unequal groups. The absolute level of benefits for many on social security, and especially for Britain's huge dole-force, are at rock bottom and should not be depressed further.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be condemned for his statement yesterday. The unemployed were earmarked for a fall of 2 per cent. in the real value of their benefit. That is a disgrace to any Government who call themselves civilised or humane.

Mr. Keith Best: If the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) had wished to deliver a violent attack against the Government, the National Health Service was manifestly the wrong ground to choose on which to do so. The Conservative Government can speak with great pride of their National Health Service record. They are spending more on the National Health Service than any other previous Government. I accept that the factors involved, as the hon. Member said, are not entirely due to Government action. Nevertheless, the fact remains that waiting lists have decreased substantially by about 100,000. That has occurred while the Conservative Government have been in office.
In no way do I want to make the problem being advanced tonight a party political issue. Labour Members may disagree with that, but I believe that there are hon. Members on each sides of the House who view the problems of those least able to look after themselves—the poor—with grave concern. I hope that that assertion will not find any disagreement on the Labour Benches.

Mr. Haynes: That is political dogma.

Mr. Best: Therefore, we wish to discuss the matter, as far as possible, dispassionately and apolitically. However, there is a great difference between the two major political parties now in the House. Not one Labour Member, to my knowledge, has placed the cost of social security payments within the context of the total economy.
Earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) deprecated all previous Labour Governments, back to 1948. I do not wish to reiterate the points I made in an intervention because they would not aid my speech. To the hon. Gentleman, any cuts in social security benefits were to be utterly rejected, irrespective of the health of the total economy at any time.
Labour Members may indulge in their fantasies if they wish. However, Conservative Members, who care about these matters, must look at the total problem within the context of the nation's economy.
The hon. Member for Ashfield moans bitterly, but he knows that social security payments now account for about one quarter of total expenditure. Nevertheless, under the present Government, expenditure has still risen in real terms. All hon. Members should congratulate the Government, bearing in mind the economic difficulties through which the country is passing.

Mr. Haynes: rose———

Mr. Best: I will give way in a moment. In 1978 and 1979 the total social security expenditure was £19,106 million and it is expected to have risen this year to £21,161 million. If Labour Members disagree with that, let them consider the matter in historical terms. In the 1970 to 1980 period the growth of the gross domestic product was 20·6 per cent., while the growth of social security benefit expenditure—revalued to constant prices, using the retail price index from 1970 to 1980—was not 20·6 per cent. but 57 per cent.
Let us look at the payments made between those years. In 1970, the gross domestic product was £51,107 million. Social security benefits were £3,921 million—representing a percentage of GDP of 7·7 per cent. What do we find in 1980? It is not the same

percentage by any means. We find a GDP of £225,560 million, and social security benefits at £22,211 million—representing 9·8 per cent. of GDP.
The hon. Member for Ashfield does not wish to intervene now. I am grateful, because obviously I have answered the question that he was about to raise.
The Government can speak with great pride of the record that they have been able to maintain so far, taking the total economic climate into account.

Mr. Haynes: Three million unemployed.

Mr. Best: There are of those of us on both sides of the House who would like to see greater expenditure on social security because we believe it right that those who are least able to look after themselves should be succoured in times of national distress. The difference, as I perceived a moment ago, between the two sides of the House is that one side seems to think of that in isolation, and the other side sees it in terms of economic reality, regarding it as a percentage of GDP.
I do not wish to reiterate the valid points made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security about what the present Government have done, particularly in the realm of retirement pensions. Between November 1978 and November 1981, the single pension rose from £19·50 per week to £29·60 per week. The married pension rose from £31·20 to £47·35 a week. That represents an increase of almost 52 per cent., against an expected rise in prices over the same period of a similar amount.
The basic heating addition has not been mentioned very much tonight. Sadly, I understand why it has not been mentioned by Opposition Members. It is a matter on which the Government can talk with great relish. Those on supplementary benefit have had the basic heating addition raised from 95p per week in November 1979 to £1·65 today, and it is now given automatically to pensioners aged over 70 and to householders who are in receipt of supplementary benefit.
I do not need to embarrass the Opposition by talking about the Christmas bonus. The point has already been made about the way in which the Labour Government unjustly denied that to pensioners in 1975 and 1976.
Widows' pensions have also been fully protected by the Government against prices, and the 2 per cent. shortfall will be made good for them next year. Single parents are now eligible for the long-term rate of supplementary benefit after one year. Under the Labour Government, the period was two years. All families on supplementary benefit are now entitled automatically to receive the basic heating addition.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose——

Mr. Best: I shall give way to the hon. Member, but I hope that he will not try to pre-empt my speech.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that all widows' benefits have been protected. Will he look carefully at the widows' allowance, which is one of the short-term benefits? From the Chancellor's statement, it appeared not to have had the 2 per cent. restored to it.

Mr. Best: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was paying close attention to my speech. I mentioned widows' pensions, rather than the widows' allowance. I shall come shortly to the points about which the hon. Gentleman is eager to hear me speak. However, in addition to what was said by my hon. Friend the Minister, I believe it to be right


that the way in which the present Government have been able to protect people who are least able to look after themselves should be articulated by both sides of the Chamber. It is a great record for a country that is going through an economic crisis.
Two matters cause me considerable concern. I am sure that the concern is shared by hon. Members on all sides of the House. The first relates to the position of a married man with two children, who will be unemployed in January 1982. I recently asked for the comparison between social security benefits in May 1979 and January 1982. In May 1979 unemployment benefit paid at an average level was £27·20. In January 1982 that sum will be £38. That is a 40 per cent. increase. I have no complaint about that.
If one examines unemployment benefit plus earnings-related supplement, a person who attracts the maximum earnings-related supplement in May 1979 received £43·45. In January 1982, because of the abolition of earnings-related supplement, the same person will receive only £38. That is about 87 per cent. of the sum payable in May 1979.
That is not what concerns me. I am worried about the answer to the supplementary question that I asked. I asked what would be the position of the same person in January 1982 if earnings-related supplement had not been abolished and if there had been no abatement and no alteration in child dependency additions. I was told that if child dependency additions were at the same rate as they were in May 1979 the amount of unemployment benefit, plus child benefit, would be not £38, but £69·25. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will discount those figures. On my reckoning there is a shortfall of £31·25. The sum payable would be about half that which the same person would have received if the earnings-related supplement had not been abolished. That is a matter of grave concern to the whole House and I hope that my hon. Friend will say something about it.
Another matter was articulated by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). It concerns the long-term supplementary allowance. From a reply to an earlier intervention it appears that the 2 per cent. shortfall in the long-term supplementary allowance will not be made good, whereas for the long-term supplementary pension it will. That means that there will be three different levels of benefit. That cannot he entirely satisfactory. I hope that the whole House will address itself to that and point out the anomaly which, I believe, was not generally perceived before tonight. Perhaps it was not perceived by the Government. There might still be time for the Government to do something about it.
I began by expressing my satisfaction with what the Government have been able to do so far in times of economic difficulty. I tried to structure my speech in an apolitical way without making grave political points and without castigating one side or the other. All hon. Members will accept that in these financially difficult times the Government have done a great deal to succour those who are least able to look after themselves. I have pointed to two areas of grave concern that should be examined far more carefully by the Government. [am sure, following tonight's debate, that this will happen.
I believe that the Conservative Party has always enjoyed wide support from all sections in society. In the interest of fairness, it has sought to look after those least able to look ater themselves. We have a fine record, going back to the days of Robert Peel and the restriction on

working hours of children in the mines, half a century before the Labour Party was even thought of, to more recent times. It was the Conservative Party, not the Liberals, the Cobdens and Brights and those financially interested in keeping women and children working down the mines, that ensured that those people were given a better deal. In more recent times, one finds that it was the Conservative Party that gave pensions to the over-80s. If it was ever felt that the Conservative Party had turned from that fine tradition, it would not command, nor would it deserve, the support that it has merited in the past.
I believe that the Government will not allow such an event to happen. I believe that the Government are concerned and that within the current economic constraints they will address their minds to ensuring that the needy will not suffer. If the Government follow that course, as I firmly believe they will, and as they will need to do to command my continuing support, they will be true to the Conservative Party's tradition and its political philosophy of uniting the nation for a future of greatness.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I listened to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) with surprise and amazement. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he would appoach the subject in a dispassionate and apolitical manner and finished by delivering a Conservative Party political broadcast. I do not wish to go through all the details of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He argued that it was a point of merit for the Conservative Party and the Government that social security benefits had increased. The hon. Gentleman quoted a number of figures but failed to say that the reason why total expenditure on these benefits had increased was that the policies of the Government had increased by 1½ million or more the number of unemployed to whom the benefits had to be paid.

Mr. Best: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the increases in social security expenditure experienced under the previous Labour Government had nothing to do with the fact that they presided over a doubling of unemployment during their period in office?

Mr. Dubs: I was referring to the precise figures and time periods that the hon. Gentleman had quoted. The only explanation for the increase in the total proportion of GDP spent on social security benefits is the unemployment created by the actions and policies of the Government.
The hon. Gentleman bemoaned the economic climate as if that climate, like the weather, was something over which we had no control. He knows that the economic climate in this country over the last two-and-a-half years has to a large measure been the creation of his own Government. The increase in unemployment and the other difficulties through which we are passing are the direct consequence of policies that started on the day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his first Budget in the summer of 1979. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should not be allowed to forget that.

Mr. Rossi: I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to get the whole matter out of perspective. One takes the point that he has made about the unacceptable level of unemployment in Britain, but social security payments represent only 6 per cent. of the total amount that the Government are paying out. He must not exaggerate the impact upon unemployment of the total social security outlay.

Mr. Dubs: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. Nevertheless, the increase in the number of unemployed has raised significantly the burden on the Exchequer because of the requirement to provide support for the unemployed, whether through unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit. School leavers do not receive unemployment benefit. All that they can get now is supplementary benefit. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman included that in the percentage figure that he just quoted to me.
The fact is inescapable that what the Government have done, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to make clear—or, rather, he obscured it totally—in his statement yesterday, is to increase the burdens on the weakest members of our society. That is the only way in which one can interpret what the Government announced yesterday.
I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to obscure the matter in his statement because of the way in which it was couched. He said:
The House will know that the increase in the RPI to November 1981 will probably be some 2 per cent. higher than the 10 per cent. increase allowed for when calculating this year's uprating. For retirement pensions and other long-term benefits, the shortfall will be made good in the November 1982 uprating. We shall thus continue to fulfil our pledge to retirement pensioners that they will be fully protected against inflation. In the case of the short-term benefits, however, next year's increase will be equal to the expected increase in the retail price index during the next 12 months."—[Official Report, 2 December 1981; Vol. 14, c. 239.]
In other words, there will be no protection or reimbursement for the shortfall that he announced.
We are dealing with a 10 per cent. uprating that is 2 per cent. below the rate of inflation. The Government have not suggested that their failure to match the rate of inflation this year is due to their inability to make necessary adjustments to the mechanism by which benefits are paid. Therefore, it is inescapable that that is an attempt to reduce public spending at the expense of the unemployed and the pensioners.
Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in a year's time pensioners would catch up. That is quite true. Nevertheless, for the next 12 months the average pensioner will have lost the equivalent of one week's pension. I do not understand why the Government are imposing such a burden upon pensioners, who have borne many burdens during the past two and a half years. They have seen cuts in the support provided by local authority social services departments, fewer home helps, less transport for the elderly and a whole range of extra burdens thrown upon them, not the least of which is the increase in the television licence fee announced earlier this week.
For other people there is no Government commitment to make good the difference. I remind the House that a year ago the Government said that they would reduce unemployment benefit by 5 per cent. in lieu of the tax that would then be imposed on the unemployed. The 2 per cent. shortfall about which we are talking today is on top of that 5 per cent. abatement. It was made clear at the time that some unemployed people would not be subject to income tax if the Government introduced the proposals. Therefore, the least well off unemployed have suffered the 5 per cent. reduction because of their income tax consideration, on top of which there is now a 2 per cent. shortfall.
Since the Government were elected, the average family man on unemployment benefit is £13 a week worse off

than he would have been if the Government had not introduced their succession of measures, the most recent of which came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer today.
I hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate will say something about child benefits, because I take fully to heart the points made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). It is disgraceful that the Government are using reductions in child benefit as a way of penalising families in poverty.
There is the question of the death grant. It may not be a matter of great concern to those with years more to live, but to the elderly, in their declining years, it provides an increasing anxiety. They feel that they cannot die with dignity. It is a scandal that the death grant has not been increased to a level commensurate with the cost of a decent burial. The elderly are terrified that they will not have a decent burial because the death grant is inadequate.
I submit that the Government have got matters wholly wrong. Statements by some Conservative Back Benchers imply that the Conservative Party is compassionate. That has been belied by the experience of the past two years and the speech of the Chancellor yesterday——

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Budgen.]

Mr. Dubs: If the Government wish to be believed, they must give an undertaking that they will not attack the weak and the elderly in our society but will ensure that they are protected from the consequences of the economic difficulties that cannot be the responsibility of the very people that are made to suffer for them.

Mr. Brynmor John: Yesterday was a sad day in the House for the hon. Members interested in social security matters. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) probably shares that sorrow. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday singled out for special sacrifice, in the continuous round of sacrifices, those least able to bear it and the last who should be called upon to do so.
Let us examine the reasons why the measure was introduced. It was not because of some great social theory of redistribution. It was not because the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to transfer money from one sector to another. It was introduced because of the consequences of the financial mismanagement of the economy of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been guilty, the need to get out of the disastrous slump into which he has brought Britain's industrial heritage, and was an attempt to prove that monetarism is not the disaster that everyone in Britain now knows it to be. The reason for the statement being made yesterday was based on and born out of failure.
To whom do we refer when we talk about the 2 per cent. shortfall? It is right to remind ourselves, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West did, that there are people who are not wholly obsessed with the minutiae of social security legislation but actually have to try to live on the fruits of social security benefits provided by the House.
We are discussing an economic forecast in which the Government Actuary suggests that unemployment in 1982–83 will amount to more than 3,100,000, and will


probably be nearer 3,250,000. The outlook is not bright. The Actuary's forecast, excluding school leavers—which he believes to be a constant figure—budgets for a rise in the unemployed of 300,000. That can mean only that the numbers of long-term unemployed, as well as the short-term unemployed, must increase. The number unemployed for a long period will rise from the current 700,000 to 800,000, or possibly more, if the number of vacancies does not increase more quickly than it is increasing at present. That is the first category of about 800,000 people, plus their dependants. They all have to live on unemployment benefit. Over half of those unemployed are unemployed as a direct result of the Government's policies and therefore the situation is in many ways a consequence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures.
We have had the curious thought that beneficiaries, like Gaul, are divided into three. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, we now have three classes of benefit. Short-term supplementary benefit pensioners will not recoup their 2 per cent. The long-term pensioners will recoup their 2 per cent., but long-term beneficiaries other than pensioners will not recoup their percentage. They are in receipt of supplementary allowances. According to the figures on 28 November 1979, they number 330,000. Therefore, we are now talking about more than I million people. That is not an inconsiderable number.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying as a friend and as an adviser that his speech was well below his usual standard and combined the minimum information with the maximum aggression. That is probably a byproduct of his Department's long struggles with the Treasury in which it did not completely win the protection it sought. The sum of £65 million involves 1 million people and their dependents. Therefore, we are talking about a considerable number of people.
Only those who suffer from the Sproat-like fantasies of a few Conservative Back Benchers can possibly believe that those people are unemployed or in receipt of other benefits by choice. That is not a category of people that is growing week by week. People are not saying "That is enough for me. I can get a much better deal on the dole". I repeat that they are on the dole as a result of the Government's actions and the failure of the British economy. The Government bear a heavy responsibility. As has been said, it is not as if this is the only measure to single out the more disadvantaged in our society. We talk about the 5 per cent. and the phasing out of earnings-related benefits and all the other measures involved. This is not the only measure that I found objectionable in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement.
As mention has been made of health, I am entitled to make a passing reference to it. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) spoke about hospitals and did well to confine his remarks to them. Yesterday we learnt that prescription charges will increase to £1·30 compared with the charge of 20p that was levied before the Conservative Party came to power. That is no great success story. Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very adept at hiding the increased ophthalmic charges. Many hon. Members do not realise that the charge for a lens has been raised from £8·30 to £15. That is the mark of the Government's tremendous success story in the Health Service.
I return to the question of the unemployed and the short-term and long-term supplementary benefit allowances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer underestimated the rate of inflation. We all know that he does that. He does it every year, and he gets it wrong every year—except for one year. I want to talk about that, because it illustrates a nice piece of logic which the Government apply. One year he got it wrong in the opposite direction. He estimated for 10 per cent. and it turned out to be 9 per cent., so he immediately clawed the 1 per cent. back. He did not say "I have got it wrong, so you can keep the difference". Instead he clawed it back. Yet when he gets it wrong in the opposite direction he does not say "I have got it wrong, so you can have the difference". He keeps the difference. If ever there was an example of "Heads I win, tails you lose" it is that doctrine.
The Chancellor is extremely dishonest in the way he forecasts and in the way he stands by the results of those forecasts. Of course, some factors may blow the Government off course. They would blow any Government off course when it comes to inflation. However, these factors which have widened the gap between actual inflation and forecast inflation were pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the last Budget. There is nothing magical in that. We told him that he would get it wrong and, for once, he obliged.
He assumes an inflation rate of 10 per cent. next year. Does anyone believe him? Certainly I do not. Will pensioners believe him, or the people who have suffered the shortfall this year? Or will they again be brought to the reality that any gap will be fudged so that they are the losers, and the weakest in our society are called on once again to bear the brunt.
I want to say one thing on behalf of this side—well, the Labour Party. We are the party on this side of the House. I was technically correct. I wish that I had not corrected myself. After all, the other parties are singularly absent. Even if measures had to be taken to correct an economic imbalance, under no circumstances would I make the unemployed, or people in receipt of long-term supplementary allowances, or people in receipt of short-term social security payments the victims of the country's need to tighten its belt.
I am asked where the money comes from. For the life of me, I cannot see what great benefit the economy has derived by lowering the upper rate of tax, which was almost the first thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in his first Budget. He said that it would be the magic stimulus to release all the hidden talents which had been kept down by years of Labour shackles. What has happened? Precisely nothing. I see nothing as a consequence of that measure. One should weigh up that non-stimulus with the necessity to tell the unemployed that the 2 per cent. greater inflation which they have suffered is on their own heads. It is a gross misuse of funds to continue that concession while failing to reimburse the unemployed.
There is a danger that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I choose my words carefully, because I do not believe that it was deliberate—concealed some of the truth yesterday when he said:
For retirement pensions and other long-term benefits, the shortfall will be made good".—[Official Report, 2 December 1981; Vol. 14, c. 239.]


I hope that the hon. Lady will confirm that what we have said is correct—that long-term supplementary allowances are not to be made good. There will be a shortfall, so to that extent the Chancellor of the Exchequer misled the House yesterday.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Again.

Mr. John: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a habit of doing that by accident, as if he trips over the front step every time he tries to go through his front door.
Great play was made on the alignment of benefits. Can one now say, with three rates of benefit, that they are any longer aligned? If so, may I ask the Minister a question once again? She seemed confident and relaxed before, but I do not believe that it is as simple as that. Will the changes in rates and the disalignment need legislation to put them right? I believe that there might have to be a Bill. If so, the Government had better tell us quickly. The Minister had better stop pretending that there has been a great simplification of social security under his Government, when he has just created three rates that were not there before.
I come to my final point because I must give the Minister a chance to reply to the many points that have been made. Although the two Government spokesmen will have spoken in the debate, it is important to the many hon. Members who have raised points that they should have an opportunity to reply. I reiterate to the Minister that we do not believe that in singling out the categories of person that the Chancellor singled out yesterday he was according with the wishes either of the majority of the House of Commons or of the majority of the nation.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West said that he would prefer to try beating the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the head with a soft pillow for the next four months, to persuade him of the correctness of his view. Even the hon. Gentleman will admit that there are many Members sitting on the Conservative Back Benches who are deeply apprehensive. Otherwise, why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer have such a rapturous reception from his Back Benchers at the meeting in the House of Commons last night? There is no majority in the House of Commons, and certainly no majority in the country, for his measures. The country does not take to a Government who single out the weakest in our society or the unfortunate for the harshest treatment.
Unless the Government remind themselves that their duty, as the many statements seem to suggest, is to protect the weakest in our society, that will devalue not only their words before the election—God knows those words were devalued quickly anyway—but all the assurances given by Ministers in the House. Despite everything that is said about the parliamentary process, I still believe that Ministers' words given in the House of Commons should mean something. If they do, it is time that this Administration lived up to them.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I shall do my best in the short time available, if I am permitted by the House to do so, to wind up the debate and answer as many as possible of the questions that have been posed.
I congratulate the hon. member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on initiating a Supply day debate. I say that because that is much more like what we have had today. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) had better look to his laurels, because he has trotted off on a Thursday evening.
The debate has been wide. The speech of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security was a clear exposition of the detail that could not be included, for obvious reasons, in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. There is an additional £2·5 billion in 1982–83 on top of the large sums that we now spend. It behoves us all in the House, whatever party we represent and whatever the make-up of our constituencies, to realise the vast rate of increase in our benefit expenditure, which is largely spent on the retired and the handicapped. It is necessary expenditure with which we all agree.
One thing that worries me considerably is the total lack of appreciation—sometimes within the House, but certainly outside—of the level of spending on pensioners, which we do not regret for a moment but which must be financed for years ahead. At a time like this, it behoves us to realise that 43 per cent. of the spend is for retirement pensioners. A further 8 per cent. or more goes to the handicapped, who are covered by special national insurance benefits. Further amounts can be added for supplementary benefits paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
The vast majority of social security spending goes to elderly people and people who are very much in need. I therefore appreciate what has been said by a number of hon. Members.
The thing that does not seem to have got home to hon. Members is that 60 per cent. of all benefit expenditure is covered by the Government's guarantee to make good the shortfall, be it 1·8 per cent., 1·9 per cent., or 2 per cent. We have had to look at where we could make a contribution to what was being demanded of all Government Departments by the Treasury.
The shortfall announced by the Chancellor will total £65 million in 1982–83. We should remind ourselves of exactly what that is compared with the cuts made by the Labour Government in 1976. The £500 million then saved by switching the method of uprating from the historical method used on the two previous occasions to the forecasting method that has been subsequently used would, at today's prices, be making a cut of £925 million in social security expenditure.
The shortfall that is not being made good, which is the only saving that the Treasury is taking from the DHSS on this occasion, is £65 million in 1982–83. It is high time that everybody got those figures clearly in their heads once and for all. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) for pointing those figures out. He told me that he had to leave to return to a previous engagement.
There have been a number of other comments about what has gone on previously. Pensions have gone up by more than the increase in prices under both the previous and present Administrations. Even if we allow for a November 1980 to November 1981 inflation rate of 12 per cent., the pension increase now is ahead of the price increase for the same period. We seem to forget those basic facts. That is why I have taken a few moments to repeat them so that no one is in any doubt.
I was asked to repeat the list given by my hon. Friend in his earlier remarks of the benefits that are covered by the Chancellor's pledge——

Mr. John: Are not covered.

Mrs. Chalker: I was also asked to list those that are covered. Perhaps I can deal with them all. I was asked to list those benefits that are covered by the Chancellor's pledge to make good the 2 per cent. shortfall, if it be as much as that. I do so particularly in view of the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey and the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on widows' allowance.
Those benefits where the shortfall will be made good are retirement pension—both national insurance and noncontributory; widows' pension, including widowed mothers' allowance and widows' allowance; industrial death benefit paid as widows' or widowers' pension; war disablement pension; war widows' pension; industrial disablement pension; attendance allowance; invalid care allowance; invalidity benefit; non-contributory invalidity benefit; unemployability supplement; and supplementary pension.
For the sake of the record, I shall go further and list the other benefits that are not pledged by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, injury benefit, maternity allowance, child benefit —including one-parent benefit—family income supplement, mobility allowance and supplementary allowance. That is the complete list. I hope that now that we have those benefits on the record there will be no confusion.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) made many comments, one of which concerned the take-up of benefit. He spoke in elaborate terms about Strathclyde, as though its wide-targeted campaign of last year had continued. Most hon. Members who follow these matters with care will know that the only reason for being critical of the so-called take-up campaign that Strathclyde initially ran was that it raised false expectations. The way in which it was carried out created chaos. It produced 340 people with some entitlement to regular weekly benefit, and it occurred just before the change from the old system to the new. It also did something that was cruel to many people. It raised expectations unfairly.
I am delighted to say that with that bad experience behind us we have moved on a long way. In my meetings with the social work chairmen of Strathclyde and others in Scotland, we have reached a modus vivendi whereby we consult and make sure that it is a closely targeted campaign in which the local office of the DHSS can respond to inquiries. That is the way to improve take-up, not to go on a wild goose chase that cruelly gives expectations to

those who should not have them. Other authorities in the country that are working with local offices are doing a better job than ever.
I was asked about the three rates of supplementary benefit—the two rates of supplementary allowance, and the supplementary pension. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) on alignment. I am further advised that we do not require primary legislation because the details of rates and entitlements are worked out through the regulations. My hon Friend the Minister and I have taken careful note of the remarks that have been made about the three rates, and we shall look further into the shortfall on the long-term supplementary allowance.
I come now to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ashfield on the mobility allowance. Twice during the debate he made some scurrilous accusations. I should like to put him right. If there has been a withdrawal of mobility allowance, it can only be on medical grounds, and anyone from whom that allowance was withdrawn has the right of appeal. If the hon. Gentlman did not advise his constituents to appeal in that circumstance, I am sorry. It is clearly laid down——

Mr. Haynes: More now than ever.

Mrs. Chalker: If the hon. Gentleman's local offices are not following up matters with care—I shall read the record of what he said with diligence—I shall have something to say about it. I hope that it is clear that a person from whom an allowance is removed has the right to appeal.
Many hon. Members mentioned child benefit. No one underestimates the importance of that benefit. I shall bring those remarks to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Even for those who will be new recipients of child benefit in 1982, there are special provisions to allow them to receive the benefit weekly if necessary.
Many questions were raised on health. I remind the House that there are now 9,000 more nurses and midwives, more than 1,000 extra doctors and more than 1,000 extra paramedical staff than in May 1979. That is one of the main reasons why we have been able to reduce the waiting lists. I remind the House that we are continuing the previous provision for expansion of the hospital and community health services. We intend to allow the resources to expand at the previously planned rates. The pressures of economic restraints are not——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKERadjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.